I hate to say it but the Nike AD in Sports Illustrated may be the best option in the short term while someone is coming up with something comprehensive.

They recommended playing all the bowls as usual but have a bowl pit the BCS #4 vs. #1 and another pit #2 vs. #3.

They would play the first Saturday in January. The winners could then play the second Saturday in January at a predetermined site.

So this year's winners of the Rose and Sugar Bowls could have played this coming Saturday.

A big problem that I have noticed is that a conference that gets 2 teams in BCS bowls usually winds up loosing most of the rest. The reason is the match ups. An SEC or Big 12 number 4 might be pitted against a ACC or BE number 3 or a MWC number 1 or 2. These games often are close if the more powerful conference only has 1 team in the BCS. However, if they have 2 them the Big 12 number 4 is really the Big 12 number 5, and the drop off can be considerable; especially in years when there is less balance.

What is needed is a bowl or two that would take teams from different conferences depending on which conference does NOT get the extra BCS team. That way the minor bowl match up are more likely to be good (even) games.

Suggestions?

FBfan

Miami wont be adding any new bowl games... they had what is now the tangerine... and didnt support it. The indianapolus bowl is still in the works.. as well as one from I think charlotte.

The one in charlotte is the continental tire bowl. The one in Indiana is going to be called either fellowship or hooiser bowl. Whatever happen to the proposed Cactus Bowl in Tucson and Crab Bowl in Boston area?

_________________
The Bear may be dead but he still hates Tennessee. Roll Damn Tide

It definitely seems that there needs to be a reshuffling of the bowls below the BCS bowls as well. I think there should be a top pool of teams that includes the top two teams in every BCS conference and the champion of every non-BCS conference except the Sun Belt. That's 16 teams. 10 of the 16 will go to BCS bowls. You need at least three other bowls to accommodate the rest. Perhaps you add in SEC #3, Big Ten #3, Big XII #3 and Pac-10 #3 to make the pool of second tier teams 10 to fill 5 additional bowls. That's probably not fair to the ACC, but it makes the most sense given the current bowl alignment. Let's assume that the 5th BCS bowl is the Gator Bowl. The second tier bowl alliance would be the Capital One, Cotton, Holiday, Liberty and Las Vegas bowls.

There will be at least two #2 teams from BCS conferences not making a BCS bowl. The Capital One would get first crack at SEC #2 and Big Ten #2, the Cotton Bowl would get first crack at Big XII #2 and the Holiday Bowl would get first crack at Pac-10 #2. If ACC #2 and/or Big East #2 are available, the Capital One, Cotton and Holiday may claim them in that pecking order if they so choose. The Holiday Bowl then may select the MWC champ or the WAC champ if they so choose. The Capital One and Cotton can then select any remaining conference champs (in that order) if they so choose. If the Capital One still has slots remaining, they get first crack at SEC #3 and Big Ten #3. If the Cotton Bowl still has slots remaining they get first crack at Big XII #3 and the next shot at SEC #3 if they still remain. If the Holiday Bowl still has slots remaining they get first crack at Pac-10 #3 and the next shot at Big XII #3 if they still remain. The Capital One, Cotton and Holiday then fill any remaining slots (in that order) with teams remaining in the candidate pool. The Liberty and Las Vegas bowls will collect the leftovers from the pool unless they up their payouts. The Liberty will get precedence for C-USA, MAC, ACC, Big East and SEC. The Las Vegas Bowl will get precedence for MWC, WAC, Pac-10, Big XII and Big Ten.

How might this have played out last season taking Miami out of the Big East and putting them in the ACC? This is how I see it:
Sugar: Oklahoma vs LSU
Rose: USC vs Michigan
Orange: Miami-Fla vs Miami-Oh
Fiesta: Kansas St vs Ohio St
Gator: W. Virginia vs Florida St

Capital One: Georgia vs Purdue
Cotton Bowl: Oklahoma St vs Ole Miss
Holiday Bowl: Washington St vs Boise St/Utah
Liberty Bowl: USM vs Pitt
Las Vegas Bowl: Boise St/Utah vs Oregon

I guess now that I look at it, the major conferences might not like that so much. It's probably fairer in that it gives more access to second tier bowls to the minor conferences, but it also commits major conference teams to a potential lower payout. The reshuffling will probably have to take a different form.

The real question is where does ACC #2/3 land? Perhaps the Capital One, Outback and Peach will reshuffle so that the ACC, Big Ten and SEC get two slots each in those bowls rather than the SEC having three and the ACC having only one. That would seem the most logical and the fairest, but the SEC will certainly fight the change. The problem is that if ACC #2/3 slips to the Peach vs. SEC #5/6, that will generally be a big mismatch. Maybe the Peach will up its payout and become ACC #2/3 vs. SEC #3/4. Of course, then the Outback becomes Big Ten #3/4 vs. SEC #5/6, which will also be a mismatch. If the SEC does hold onto an extra slot it can no longer really justify, it will enrich itself, but set itself up for some poor bowl records.

Mike, interesting discussion. Trying to work everything out under the existing conditions is what leads me to belive that a new bowl all together might be needed for the BCS. We'll see. I wonder how much of this would be necessary had the ACC not expanded?!

The Crab Bowl concept is technically dead; Relying on traveling fan support would not support a bowl in Boston in late fall/ early winter. The only reason NY is now considered a future bowl site is the concept of a new domed stadium for the Jets. Similar reasoning for the Hoosier Bowl, which is likely to draw a MAC/BE match-up.

This whole process is clumbsy, but working toward a greater good. Bowls chose to align themselves with conferences for the security and dependability, which could be offered to TV, fans, etc. It may not be considered thrilling to travel to Jacksonville every New Year's, but if made into an event it works out pretty well. Plus, friends I know from the ACC are learning the so called "traveling ropes," by learning to recognize and deal with businesses and hotels at sites where these bowl games occur. Once the conference has stabilized it's rapport with the bowls, the fans will appreciate the traditions and feel better about a vacation they can truly plan for rather than a last minute schedule that sends them to someplace unheard of. This feature of dependability and reputation has helped the Rose, Sugar and Orange Bowls become so popular.

As we've discussed, the scale of football requires larger scores of traveling fans, so this realignment of bowls will hopefully resolve some of the discord that has kept fans away. I know that if I can't fly somewhere for under $100 one way, I'm less likely to go and would rather drive if possible. GT going to Boise didn't work for me financially, despite my desire to go skiing.

if they are going to change the bowl affiliation and with the new bcs game coming on the MWC deserves more. The teams that are currently in the MWC (aka the former wac) built One bcs bowl (the fiesta) and built arguable the biggest competitor for the 5th bcs bowl (the holiday bowl). In light of the big east being severly weakened by defections the fiesta should look to secure the MWC has its home conference. One reason is that all the schools are within easy traveling distance. 2. Most of the schools have sizeable alumni in phoenix. 3. there is a history with the teams in the conference. If that is not possible then for definite sure the Holiday Bowl should go back to the MWC. The Holiday bowl's tradition was built by BYU. the game where they came back with Jim mcmahon and then the national championship game. this would be natural for the mwc because of reasons stated above

While I agree the MWC should/might get more bowl attention, other threads have illustrated the difference between the MWC and the BCS conferences. In terms of enrollment, budgets, program success, etc, there remains a notable difference throughout. As for the Holiday Bowl competing for BCS status, I'm sure the Outback, Capital One, Gator and Cotton bowls will argue differently.


In some other threads we directly compared the BE and MWC (Try "General Football", "Will BE get auto bid" or something like that.) I included some tables comparing the schools based on enrollment, attendance, etc. While the BE does not match-up directly with the other BCS conferences, it remained ahead of the MWC. Simply put, the BE had a deeper pool of true BCS candidates than the MWC. Further, the candidates for MWC expansion hurt the conference in other sports or don't add the market for them to notably increase revenue, hence the TCU-only addition. Should CSU exapnd their stadium and grow more popular, or Utah establish a modest tradition, etc, then the MWC will further distance itself from the other non-BCS leagues. Until then, they simply appear lodged as the Best of the Rest.


A. MWC schools not named BYU need to show notable support for their programs (yes, closer bowl games would help) B. The Big 12 schools, while perhaps not all thrilled with the Fiesta, will provide larger and more consistent support, draw more TV $, and do not want a regular match-up against the MWC.

Long term, the MWC must hope the other mid-majors drop further behind the field and that candidates for expansion in Fresno St, Houston and elsewhere begin to nurture themselves toward more BCS worthy status.

all bowls should align with the wac... LOL

Some hoopla is being made over all the bowl deals, tv, etc. Concerning bowls, note now that 6-6 teams can go to a bowl. Eligible to be counted in that is a win against a 1-AA team. Many of the bigger schools already have seven home games as standard. For a BCS conference, as many as four games can be scheduled OOC against near sure wins in addition to playing regular weaker ones among their own conference membership. With even the mid-major conferences going three and four deep with bowl tie-ins, it almost assures that everyone with at least a break-even overall record goes to a bowl.

A 6-6 Georgia Tech or Wake Forest playing a 6-6 Kansas or Iowa State, for example, may make for an evenly matched games and watching it could get exciting because such games could be close. But hardly does this generate pre-game excitement and regardless of being on TV, many people may be holiday shopping, returning gifts, or going to parties.

Added against the payouts, are the expenses to travel. The profits are not always substantive, if a profit. Many schools have salary boosts to coaches for just getting bowl invites. A multitude of bowls have failed. Most schools will accept modest gains for bowl participation just for the extra practice time and tv exposure.

So while conferences may have as much as 8 bids deep, getting a bowl is less than what it used to be, unless it is a team that rarely gets to go, or one of the BCS games or other New Year's day-type game with a nice seven figure payout per team.