clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Why Texas Tech Will Go To The Alamo Bowl

I ran across an article this morning from the Kansas City Star about which team should go to the Alamo Bowl.  The article notes that the decision comes down to Kansas State and Tech.  The thing that caught my attention was this paragraph regarding Rick Hill's, VP of marketing for the Alamo Bowl, that this year is a "need year" for the Alamo Bowl:

"They (MU, KU) just don't have the track record (having not played in the Alamo Bowl before), in a need year for us, to energize the locals," Hill said.

What Hill means by "need year" is the Alamo Bowl doesn't have a main title sponsor. It had been MasterCard, but it is now a secondary title sponsor. Hill emphasized how important it is to have a well-attended game to help attract a primary title sponsor, and to secure the future of the bowl.

So I was a little curious about attendance for the past 5 years for the Alamo Bowl and surprisingly, other than in 2004 when Ohio State beat Oklahoma State (attendance of 65,265), the 2001 Texas Tech v. Iowa game drew more folks to San Antonio (attendance 65,232).  If the Alamo Bowl is depending upon attracting a new sponsor then it would seem logical that the Alamo Bowl might go with a pretty safe route in Texas Tech.  

Now that UT lost and Texas A&M won, I wonder if either will get an invite, but I can't imagine that either team will get this invite, but we'll see.  There's still the Cotton Bowl (Big XII #2), Gator Bowl (Big 12 #3), the Holiday Bowl (Big XII #3), and possibly the Sun Bowl.