Way Too Early Bowl Projections

[KaiserUEO]

JAX would draw more than Nashville. Gator Bowl is better than Music City Bowl. More transplants within 4 hours of JAX than BNA

Fenway is going to blow weatherwise about 75% of the time. Anytime Cuse is at 6 wins...we are going to own that game. I rather the ACC and AAC hook up in Myrtle Beach Bowl.

But this is a double up on Jax right? We already have the Gator, which yes, is a far superior bowl to many.

The JV gator is a tough sell. Nashville would not be.

It’s good to see the powers that be continually shuffling the deck and putting the ACC in better situations.

All of it makes me forget about not having the BET anymore.

ACC is good.

 

[TexanMark]

UEO the ACC it looks lined up the JV Outback Bowl (Gasparilla) which is played in Tampa's Stadium (not JAX). What isn't clear is will it 100% or a partial? The Outback is also in play occasionally for the ACC.

The Gator Bowl is a new 100% permanent site (upgraded from 50%). Nashville is a cool, trendy city but much better chance of getting better weather in JAX.

 

[nzm136]

All good points, but there is no need to be in fenway.

Nobody worth their salt ever said...let’s go to Boston for the holidays!!

SD is fine.

I think Nashville would draw more than Jax.

Nashville is cool, Jax would be a reminder we aren’t in Miami or Atlanta.

The alternative to Fenway is Harvard Stadium or Detroit. Sans the connection to Harvard, I guess Harvard Stadium would be neat.

 

[nzm136]

But this is a double up on Jax right? We already have the Gator, which yes, is a far superior bowl to many.

The JV gator is a tough sell. Nashville would not be.

It’s good to see the powers that be continually shuffling the deck and putting the ACC in better situations.

All of it makes me forget about not having the BET anymore.

ACC is good.

Strongly disagree on losing the BET. That was magic.

 

[nzm136]

I think this came up earlier, and the takeaway was that the destinations are more fan-friendly, but the payouts for the replacement bowls are less. I hope we are at a place now where the monetary difference doesn't really matter.

Unless it’s been announced otherwise, I imagine the payouts are subject to change.

Anything can happen, but I’d be surprised to see the ACCtake a step back in payouts. I think we’ve had a great last couple of years, indicating that the conference is on the rise.

 

[syrBossHogg]

Stewart Mandel from the Athletic has us playing Ohio St. in the Orange Bowl

 

[longtimefan]

"moot" - doesn't matter, inconsequential.

"mute" - to silence, to muffle sound

I once had a boss who consistently (and often) misused "mute" when the proper term was "moot".

I discovered that I could bite my tongue and grind my teeth simultaneously.

 

[TexanMark]

I once had a boss who consistently (and often) misused "mute" when the proper term was "moot".

I discovered that I could bite my tongue and grind my teeth simultaneously.

So you remained moot and didn't say anything?

 

[sdhall01]

"moot" - doesn't matter, inconsequential.

"mute" - to silence, to muffle sound

I don't want to be that guy, but this whole thread is about being that guy.

"Moot" technically means open for debate.

 

[reedny]

I don't want to be that guy, but this whole thread is about being that guy.

"Moot" technically means open for debate.

That's the first English definition. But he's coming from a legal perspective - moot in the law means drained of significance, academic (i.e., no longer in dispute).

 

[sdhall01]

That's the first English definition. But he's coming from a legal perspective - moot in the law means drained of significance, academic (i.e., no longer in dispute).

I totally get it; I’m a lawyer too. I don’t think “drained of all significance” is a fair definition. Academic, interesting for debate, or—more aptly—not concerning any matter that the court can hear or that’s before the court I think works a bit better.

In short, issues often become moot that parties find VERY significant, but the Court has no jurisdiction to hear moot or unripe issues.

I just wanted to join the pedantic party . . . All the cool kids were doing it.

 

[IthacaMatt]

I totally get it; I’m a lawyer too. I don’t think “drained of all significance” is a fair definition. Academic, interesting for debate, or—more aptly—not concerning any matter that the court can hear or that’s before the court I think works a bit better.

In short, issues often become moot that parties find VERY significant, but the Court has no jurisdiction to hear moot or unripe issues.

I just wanted to join the pedantic party . . . All the cool kids were doing it.

No, I think the colloquial usage is much more in line with definition 2 these days (and was how it was intended in the post way up above):

2. having little or no practical relevance, typically because the subject is too uncertain to allow a decision. - "the whole matter is becoming increasingly moot"

 

[sdhall01]

No, I think the colloquial usage is much more in line with definition 2 these days (and was how it was intended in the post way up above):

2. having little or no practical relevance, typically because the subject is too uncertain to allow a decision. - "the whole matter is becoming increasingly moot"

Regardless, this whole conversation is moot.

 

[721Comstock]

Regardless, this whole conversation is moot.

And now it can also be mute.

 

[TexanMark]

That's the first English definition. But he's coming from a legal perspective - moot in the law means drained of significance, academic (i.e., no longer in dispute).

This term does not apply with discussing something with the better half when she knows she is right.

 

[reedny]

I totally get it; I’m a lawyer too. I don’t think “drained of all significance” is a fair definition. Academic, interesting for debate, or—more aptly—not concerning any matter that the court can hear or that’s before the court I think works a bit better.

In short, issues often become moot that parties find VERY significant, but the Court has no jurisdiction to hear moot or unripe issues.

I just wanted to join the pedantic party . . . All the cool kids were doing it.

Let's table Ripeness (not ready for adjudication) and Mootness (unnecessary to adjudicate because it's academic/resolved), which are different doctrines, for another day.

Getting back to what Matt (I think) intended, this is the common (#2) definition in merriam-webster I was referring to (the one that I think he was referencing:

2: deprived of practical significance : made abstract or purely academic

Definition of MOOT

open to question : debatable; subjected to discussion : disputed; deprived of practical significance : made abstract or purely academic… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

So whether it's "deprived of significance", "drained of significance" ... the dictionary seems to back up my interpretation of what Matt was saying. If you see it another way, your choice.