Agree with this, I do like the location a lot, so hope that promotes more ticket sales if we go, and combined with the fact that it would mean a solid conference finish it does add up nicely.

Okay, revisiting this post I was a bit pissy about it all, but rubbed me the wrong way in suggesting that I was naive about the current budget situation in higher education when you know nothing about me.

My questions above were serious though and not trying to belittle the news but just see this as another story in a long line of them about this and that news about wonderful revenues and exposure for OSU and the Pac-10 and wondering if it will really make that much of an impact.

Personally when all is said and done as a fan what I really care about is that the Beavers end up playing the majority of their bowl games in whatever bowl is offered to the first or second place team.

…a somewhat higher profile bowl (and said so), but it is still a step up, and at this time, one of the few steps up that are available.

I also agree, it will have minimal impact on wrestling, because that program is well funded by the Dale Lewis foundation. Indeed, it is too early to even predict exactly where the additional revenue will fit into the overall budget. But there are certainly plenty of places to choose from.

As far as the lower bowls going with a lower payout, that’s not in the works. There is a minimum a bowl must pay, or lose their sanction. The Holiday Bowl is aware of what is happening, they just aren’t in position at this time to make an increase. So any deflation will be from not filling the slots, not decreased payoffs. And even if some slots go unfilled, they will be the lowest paying ones. So this will be a revenue increase, with the size of the increase varying with performance.

Whether the Pac-10 can fill 7 bowl slots in any given year remains to be seen as well, given the oft-documented tough, full conference schedules, and a penchant for playing tough non-conference schedules. Some years, 6 has been more that the conference could fill.

However, it is still good to have as many slots guaranteed available as possible, especially with conferences like the ACC looking at sending 7-8 teams to bowls coast to coast.

No one disagrees that the goal is to be in the top 2-3 at worst nearly every year, but that may not always happen. And for it to happen, each incremental $ or TV appearance does make a contribution.

Not so long ago, there was quite the uproar about the need for the Pac-10 to improve their bowl package, and their visibility, and the news is that they have done so. I take that as a positive sign, given the frustrating lack of progress in recent years.

I also see Connor’s comment about it being about the same profile as the Holiday Bowl as a good indicator of the relative difference in perception from different parts of the country. We in the west have long been more aware of the Holiday Bowl and San Diego than much of the country from east of the Rockies.

So this isn’t so much about being a higher profile in the view of those on the west coast, but it is a higher profile in the view of those in Texas. (And remember where we got the Rodgers brothers from, and how few players (or other tuition paying students) on the Corvallis campus in recent years have come from Texas.)

Note also the Alamo bowl in the process is elevating the level of teams from where they have been (Big 10 #4, vs. Pac-10 #2), so their profile will be rising, while the Holiday Bowl isn’t.

on Buster sports:

Comment: Considering Larry Scott’s short tenure as Pac-10 commissioner and the league’s oft-overlooked geography restraints, this is a home run. As much as Pac-10 fans bitch about the league’s bowl lineup, they’re not going to get any bowl east of Texas to bite. The Alamo Bowl is underrated, is a terrific destination for fans to spend three or four days, and will reportedly pay the Pac-10 $3 million. A lineup of Rose-Alamo-Holiday-Sun-Emerald for the Pac-10’s top five teams is an upgrade over years past.