I reject the notion that we needed a full tie-in for bowls
by garbageplate (2022-11-27 18:03:44)

In reply to: Common sense would indicate  posted by Ty Webb

Post Reply Return to The Pit

Why couldn't we negotiate with a handful of minor bowls to serve as an option in years that we don't make the NY6 as an at-large team?

When the move was made, Swarbrick touted it as a way to preserve access to the lower-tier bowls. I don't think playing in those meaningless exhibitions should have been the driving force behind joining a conference that was never going to be a good fit and diminishing our football schedule in the process.

Do I think we were in a position to dictate terms to the SEC and the Big Ten on the same terms as the ACC deal? No, probably not, but we could've worked with another conference to lodge our other sports without demanding a tie-in for the lower bowls. That's just one example of another deal that we might've struck other than a 15 year lockup and 6 shitty games per year just to earn a Pinstripe Bowl berth.

Either way, we're stuck with the ACC deal and I think it sucks. Ten years later, we haven't formed any meaningful rivalries with any of those teams. We didn't fit in the conference back then and we don't fit now.

Replies: