menu
Logo
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: WHAT BOWL ARE WE PLAYING IN??? (NT)
Page: 2 of 3
Steve
General User
S
Member Since: 12/1/2005
Post Count: 713
person
mail
Steve
mail
Posted: 11/28/2010 11:44 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Very unlikely that MTSU will beat FIU
OHIO1985
General User
Member Since: 3/3/2005
Location: Hawthorn Woods, IL
Post Count: 63
mail
OHIO1985
mail
Posted: 11/29/2010 12:26 AM
settings_applications edit_note
My ESPN "Bowl Bound" app now has OHIO playing against, ready for this, NIU in the LC Pizza Bowl on Dec.26th. Are they high or would people pay to see an All MAC Bowl game?
Last Edited: 11/29/2010 12:29:23 AM by OHIO1985
Ryan Carey
Site Programmer
Member Since: 11/11/2004
Post Count: 993
mail
Ryan Carey
mail
Posted: 11/29/2010 8:17 AM
settings_applications edit_note
This CNN writer says BYU in New Mexico:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/stewart_mandel/11/28/bcs.bowl.projections/index.html


New Mexico: BYU (MWC) vs. Ohio (WAC*)

Humanitarian: Fresno State (WAC) vs. Temple (MAC No. 3)

Little Caesars: Northern Illinois (MAC No. 1) vs. Louisville (Big Ten No. 8*)

Sun: Maryland (ACC No. 4) vs. Toledo (Pac-10 No. 4*)

GoDaddy.com: Miami (OH) (MAC No. 2) vs. Troy (Sun Belt No. 2)
Ryan Carey
Site Programmer
Member Since: 11/11/2004
Post Count: 993
mail
Ryan Carey
mail
Posted: 11/29/2010 8:33 AM
settings_applications edit_note
As of this morning, ESPN has following with 2 different people doing projections:  

One writer says Ohio vs. Utah in Las Vegas and the other writer has  Ohio vs. Fresno State in New Mexico

http://espn.go.com/college-football/bowls/projections?season=2010&week=13


Writer 1:

GoDaddy.com: Miami (OH) vs. Troy
Little Caesars: Louisville vs. Northern Illinois
MAACO Las Vegas: Utah vs. Temple
uDrove Humanitarian: Toledo vs. Nevada
New Mexico: Ohio vs. Fresno State

Writer 2:

GoDaddy.com: Miami (OH) vs. Troy
Hyundai Sun: Miami (FL) vs. Toledo
Little Caesars: Louisville vs. Northern Illinois
MAACO Las Vegas: Utah vs. Ohio
uDrove Humanitarian: Temple vs. Nevada

colobobcat66
General User
C66
Member Since: 9/1/2006
Location: Watching the bobcats run outside my window., CO
Post Count: 4,744
person
mail
colobobcat66
mail
Posted: 11/29/2010 8:53 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Steve wrote:expand_more
Very unlikely that MTSU will beat FIU

Yeah, that FIU club is a powerhouse, I forgot.
OhioStunter
General User
Member Since: 2/18/2005
Location: Chicago
Post Count: 2,516
mail
OhioStunter
mail
Posted: 11/29/2010 10:51 PM
settings_applications edit_note

Pasted from another thread:

Bowl predictions have us going anywhere, but at least we're going (according to most predictions):

Yahoo/Rivals: Sun Bowl vs. Miami (FL) (making a return to the Sun Bowl after 40 years would be nice for the "more seasoned" fans. Plus, I'd love to take the U to the shed if we can)

Scout.com: Humanitarian vs. Boise St. (don't want to get wiped out by BSU. They'll play angry and in front of a home crowd)

CBS Sports: MAACO (Las Vegas) vs. Utah (Vegas is nice this time of year)

ESPN (Mark Schlabach): New Mexico vs. Fresno St. (New Mexico is one of 11 states I've never been to)

ESPN (Andrea Adelson): MAACO vs. Utah (If we do make this bowl game, the over-under on "Uh-Oh" references leading up to the game is 479)

NBC Sports: No Bowl (What does NBC know about college football? They only show ND games. And Rudy was offsides) 

Casper71
General User
C71
Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 3,237
person
mail
Casper71
mail
Posted: 11/29/2010 11:54 PM
settings_applications edit_note
It was also "unlikely" that Kent St would beat Ohio!

Best thing to do is just wait for the games to play out.  Some of these sites do not seem to know who is contractually obligated to where...
Cats-22
General User
C22
Member Since: 9/30/2006
Post Count: 370
person
mail
Cats-22
mail
Posted: 12/3/2010 10:04 AM
settings_applications edit_note
OhioStunter wrote:expand_more
Yahoo/Rivals: Sun Bowl vs. Miami (FL) (making a return to the Sun Bowl after 40 years would be nice for the "more seasoned" fans. Plus, I'd love to take the U to the shed if we can)

Rivals is now also saying MAACO Las Vegas, although that was posted Dec 1 before the AZ State win.  ASU still needs the waiver from the NCAA though, since they're 6-6 with two FCS wins.  I'm sure the MAACO bowl would prefer the ASU fanbase.

http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1156897
Last Edited: 12/3/2010 10:23:52 AM by Cats-22
Don Sebera
General User
DS
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 5
person
mail
Don Sebera
mail
Posted: 12/3/2010 11:14 AM
settings_applications edit_note
I love the articles, such as Cleveland.com had, that only 3 MAC teams will go bowling.  Let's do the math, there are 70 bowl spots available.  As of today there are 70 eligible teams, with only 4 more with the potential of being eligible (Washington, Oregon State, Middle Tennessee, and Louisiana Tech).  With guaranteed tie-ins and secondary tie ins, its more than safe to assume that 5 of the 6 MAC teams will get invites.  Considering Oregon State has Oregon, and Louisiana Tech has Nevada, I think at best (worst) we wind up with 72 bowl eligible teams.  The crazy thing is that if one of the four win, it means 71 teams for 70 spots, so one lone team with an eligible record will get left in the cold. 
Last Edited: 12/3/2010 11:15:05 AM by Don Sebera
Casper71
General User
C71
Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 3,237
person
mail
Casper71
mail
Posted: 12/3/2010 11:21 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Mid Tenn is the one I am most worried about...
Zone Blitz
General User
ZB
Member Since: 12/3/2010
Post Count: 2
person
mail
Zone Blitz
mail
Posted: 12/3/2010 11:27 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Ohio is not going bowling if ASU is granted their waiver and MTSU and UW win on Saturday.  (I don't think La Tech or OSU have a chance of winning). 

If ASU is granted a waiver or if MTSU wins - but not both, then either Ohio or Temple is staying home and I will bet its Ohio who stays home. 

I guess we'll know ASU's fate later today.  I will be surprised if they are not granted a waiver.  It's all about the money and the PAC-10 would lose money to a non-BCS at-large if ASU is not granted a waiver (does anyone really think the NCAA would let that happen?). 

If Wazzu beats UW, then throw Ohio's name back in the hat and cheer for FIU. 
John C. Wanamaker
General User
Member Since: 1/2/2005
Post Count: 1,103
mail
John C. Wanamaker
mail
Posted: 12/3/2010 11:29 AM
settings_applications edit_note
It is not just a PAC10 thing with ASU either.  Las Vegas has a real interest in having a team like ASU in their Bowl over any MAC team.  ASU will sell some tickets and bring in $$$$ something Ohio would not do.
Don Sebera
General User
DS
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 5
person
mail
Don Sebera
mail
Posted: 12/3/2010 11:39 AM
settings_applications edit_note
I could see the NCAA granting waivers if not enough teams were eligible, but granting one when there are enough eligible teams would be so ridiculous (yes I know its the NCAA).  If they grant it once, what would stop every team from putting a couple FCS teams on the schedule with the precedent set. Or having a 5-7 team say they are better than a 6-6 team based on schedule.  Even though the NCAA is a mess, I am not sure they would want to open that can of worms.  The scenarios that the exception would create would be monumental and fly in the face of the need to be bowl eligible.  But I repeat...Yes, I know this is the NCAA.
Last Edited: 12/3/2010 11:42:05 AM by Don Sebera
Casper71
General User
C71
Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 3,237
person
mail
Casper71
mail
Posted: 12/3/2010 11:41 AM
settings_applications edit_note
SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES with San Jose backing out so late...they wouldn't grant it IF ASU has scheduled two 1-AA teams years ago.

Follow up...the whole Temple discussion is really getting to me.  They lost to 3 Bowl eligible and deserving MAC teams (Miami, Ohio and NIU).  So, how can they or the the MAC seriously push for them before pushing for the teams that beat them on the field?

The thing about Vegas is it has visitors all the time.  Bringing in hoards of people is not as important to them as some Bowls although I am sure they love the probability of more fans.  Having said that, I'm sure they feel ASU is more representative of the kind of team they want (BCS/PAC10).
Last Edited: 12/3/2010 11:50:19 AM by Casper71
Don Sebera
General User
DS
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 5
person
mail
Don Sebera
mail
Posted: 12/3/2010 11:47 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Good Point, but I maintain teams know the risk of scheduling FCS teams.  I can also see where the Vegas folks would much prefer the $ that would come from ASU, but wow does it not create a joke of what bowl eligibility means. And ASU's wins were again 5-6 Washington, 2-9 Wazzu and 4-7 UCLA.  Given the ranked state rival from Tucson can be counted as a good win.
Last Edited: 12/3/2010 11:56:37 AM by Don Sebera
Tim Burke
General User
Member Since: 11/23/2004
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Post Count: 607
mail
Tim Burke
mail
Posted: 12/3/2010 12:04 PM
settings_applications edit_note
I don't give a damn about "special circumstances." If ASU bumps Western Michigan from a bowl (or, god forbid, us) that's conference revenue WE LOSE and that goes to the Pac-10, who doesn't need it anyway.

This bowl system is designed to make people wealthy and rich schools richer. This is why anyone who opposes a playoff because of the "historical role of the bowls" is a stupid person.
John C. Wanamaker
General User
Member Since: 1/2/2005
Post Count: 1,103
mail
John C. Wanamaker
mail
Posted: 12/3/2010 12:09 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Tim Burke wrote:expand_more
I don't give a damn about "special circumstances." If ASU bumps Western Michigan from a bowl (or, god forbid, us) that's conference revenue WE LOSE and that goes to the Pac-10, who doesn't need it anyway.

This bowl system is designed to make people wealthy and rich schools richer. This is why anyone who opposes a playoff because of the "historical role of the bowls" is a stupid person.


Tim I oppose a play-off because I do not think (my opinion only) that the MAC and OHIO would have a seat at the table.  
Tim Burke
General User
Member Since: 11/23/2004
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Post Count: 607
mail
Tim Burke
mail
Posted: 12/3/2010 12:11 PM
settings_applications edit_note
John C. Wanamaker wrote:expand_more
I don't give a damn about "special circumstances." If ASU bumps Western Michigan from a bowl (or, god forbid, us) that's conference revenue WE LOSE and that goes to the Pac-10, who doesn't need it anyway.

This bowl system is designed to make people wealthy and rich schools richer. This is why anyone who opposes a playoff because of the "historical role of the bowls" is a stupid person.


Tim I oppose a play-off because I do not think (my opinion only) that the MAC and OHIO would have a seat at the table.  


That's like saying you oppose eating apples because eventually it'll just be a core.
Don Sebera
General User
DS
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 5
person
mail
Don Sebera
mail
Posted: 12/3/2010 12:17 PM
settings_applications edit_note
I think what JCW is saying is that the powers that control college football already put constraints on who can play for a title with their BCS bowl automatic bids, and a playoff system would be run the same way with the top conferences getting all the glory and opportunity and schools like OHIO and conferences like the MAC would be at home watching regardless of the quality of team they put on the field. Heck we are trying to justify the inclusion of all our eligible teams in the bowls while there is discussion of exemptions for ineligible teams.  To me that is an illustration of the point JCW was trying to make...I think.  But, I would not be opposed to a playoff either, but there is no way you could do a 64 team playoff and I worry how much opportunity we would have to participate.
Last Edited: 12/3/2010 12:20:26 PM by Don Sebera
Flomo-genized
General User
F
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 574
person
mail
Flomo-genized
mail
Posted: 12/3/2010 12:19 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Tim Burke wrote:expand_more
I don't give a damn about "special circumstances." If ASU bumps Western Michigan from a bowl (or, god forbid, us) that's conference revenue WE LOSE and that goes to the Pac-10, who doesn't need it anyway.


The MAC likely wouldn't get any revenue at all from whatever bowl lowered itself to taking WMU.  As an at-large team, the bowl would likely at most just agree to off-set the number of tickets that WMU has to buy, rather than cut the conference any sort of check.  Therefore, ASU bumping WMU has zero practical effect on conference revenues.

That having been said, I agree with your general stance on the bowls.
Last Edited: 12/3/2010 12:24:25 PM by Flomo-genized
John C. Wanamaker
General User
Member Since: 1/2/2005
Post Count: 1,103
mail
John C. Wanamaker
mail
Posted: 12/3/2010 12:20 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Don Sebera wrote:expand_more
I think what JCW is saying is that the powers that control college football already put constraints on who can play for a title with their BCS bowl automatic bids, and a playoff system would be run the same way with the top conferences getting all the glory and opportunity and schools like OHIO and conferences like the MAC would be at home watching regardless of the quality of team they put on the field.


Exactly Don!  Thanks!

I use this, the most discussed option is a 16 team format with 11 AQ's and 5 at large.  That means that #1 you have to be MAC Champs to get in (which hasn't happened since 1968), but I also do not think we would get an AQ as a conference.  The big boys, and I use that term towards the media and those who sponsor and fund such events, are not going to leave the 2nd and 3rd place teams at home of the SEC, Big10, PAC10, Big12, have to throw ND in there as well.  A play-off may very well be the death of the MAC as an FBS conference.
Flomo-genized
General User
F
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 574
person
mail
Flomo-genized
mail
Posted: 12/3/2010 12:22 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Don Sebera wrote:expand_more
I think what JCW is saying is that the powers that control college football already put constraints on who can play for a title with their BCS bowl automatic bids, and a playoff system would be run the same way with the top conferences getting all the glory and opportunity and schools like OHIO and conferences like the MAC would be at home watching regardless of the quality of team they put on the field. Heck we are trying to justify the inclusion of all our eligible teams in the bowls while there is discussion of exemptions for ineligible teams.  To me that is an illustration of the point JCW was trying to make...I think.  But, I would not be opposed to a playoff either, but there is no way you could do a 64 team playoff and I worry how much opportunity we would have to participate.


I just don't get this viewpoint.  We are already irrelevant.  Even if we remain irrelevant in a playoff system (which isn't guaranteed), we as fans still come out ahead because we get to watch a compelling tournament rather than far less compelling bowl games.  So the net effect on Ohio is zilch, but the overall benefit is significant.
cc-cat
General User
C
Member Since: 4/5/2006
Location: matthews, NC
Post Count: 4,016
person
mail
cc-cat
mail
Posted: 12/3/2010 12:25 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Agree that big boys will grab for what they can, which is why I think some sort of "play-in" game would be involved - any participation (as flomo points out) is better than the current process.  Which at this very second looks like the MAC champion and #25 ranked team in the BCS will be so wonderfully rewarded with a game against....wait for it...another MAC team.
Last Edited: 12/3/2010 12:30:36 PM by cc-cat
Casper71
General User
C71
Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 3,237
person
mail
Casper71
mail
Posted: 12/3/2010 12:33 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Not so sure...a meaningless playoff play in game (loss to #1 seed) for ONE team or irrelevant Bowl games for 3-4-5 schhols?  I think I pick the Bowl system as more get to "enjoy" something.
cc-cat
General User
C
Member Since: 4/5/2006
Location: matthews, NC
Post Count: 4,016
person
mail
cc-cat
mail
Posted: 12/3/2010 12:39 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Other bowl games would continue.  It would not be the playoff representative or nothing.  The Clemsons, UCLAs, etc. would make sure of that.  Would five MAC teams bowl, no.  But probably two others, plus the champion would. 
Showing Messages: 26 - 50 of 66
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
chevron_forward
MAC News Links
chevron_left
Tuesday, May 12, 2026
chevron_right



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)