This tidbit from BCS Chairman Bill Hancock in my opinion will spell the "deathnail" for "Bowl Games". Pure playoff, not a Plus One after Bowl Games.

Hancock also said they were not presenting to the conferences a plus-one model, leaving only the four-team playoff models.

The new playoff format would start after the 2014 regular season and would replace the current BCS model that pairs the No. 1 and 2 ranked teams in a bowl game.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...t-for-2014

So all this handringing about "Bowls" is about to look dumb. The key issue addressed earlier in this piece is about how they are going to split the pie and that is the "concern" for the BIG EAST. Not whether someone has a tie in to the Fiesta Bowl.

To put it simply, if the 4 team Playoff is somehow Virginia Tech vs. Arkansas & Oregon vs. Oklahoma State the "General Public" is not going to give a rats butt if the Rose Bowl Matchup is Southern Cal vs. Ohio State, or a Fiesta Bowl with a Notre Dame vs. Texas or a Sugar Bowl with a Alabama vs. Michigan.

Those games just become to many like the NIT. The Bowl games are about to mean Not in Tournament...juz say'n.

I said it earlier the bowl games will become the NIT, a tradition that we don't want to eliminate but not the ultimate goal anymore. The Rose Bowl if has high profile Big Ten and PAC 12 Champions could still have juice left to it.

The key is how much money will each conference recieve. The bowl matchups for the Big East should be good fits in places our fans would want to travel to after a solid season.

Andy Staples of Sports Illustrated College Football writer is saying that it appears they are going to open up the bid process for the College Football Championship to "All cities"...Indianapolis, Dallas, Tampa, Detriot...etc. etc.

They are going to do it like the NFL does the Super Bowl sites for maximum $$$$$,

The BCS bowls are going to be affected greatly, although I suspect they end up being at least the semifinal spots that will soften the blow.

I really don't think the other bowls are going to be affected much at all. They were already second class with the BCS system, and created a viable niche.

Which is why the current BCS bowls will fight to become to host semis and championship games.The only bowl game that I can see remaining outside of that structure and surviving would be he Rose and even then it would have chosen to take a step back because its teams would have no shot at NC. Any Bowl outside the playoff would become just like the Capital Ouutback and Cotton and would not pay more than those currently do

... and how has this changed? The Bowls have been irrelevent for a while now. They have tried to unsuccessfully maintain the historical matchups such as the Rose Bowl. As far as I am concernced the bowls have just been "programming" that the networks could put on television to sell advertising during the holidays until the lead up of the national championship. That being said... I love college football. During the holiday bowl season I will watch nearly any bowl match up from nearly any conference. If you are talking payout and money that may be a different story... we will see.

(04-27-2012 09:54 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  The BCS bowls are going to be affected greatly, although I suspect they end up being at least the semifinal spots that will soften the blow.

I really don't think the other bowls are going to be affected much at all. They were already second class with the BCS system, and created a viable niche.

I agree with this.

(04-27-2012 09:55 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Which is why the current BCS bowls will fight to become to host semis and championship games.The only bowl game that I can see remaining outside of that structure and surviving would be he Rose and even then it would have chosen to take a step back because its teams would have no shot at NC. Any Bowl outside the playoff would become just like the Capital Ouutback and Cotton and would not pay more than those currently do

Well Cuban, it appeats that the current BCS Bowl will be fighting over the "Semifinals". The actual title game according to Staples is going to be open to any city. You can very well have the "Title Game" even @ the new 49ers Stadium, or course Atlanta, Tampa, Detriot, Indy etc etc.

So if thats the case the current four will have to fight off the Cotton, just so they can host a semi every other year

I think the Rose is in. They don't want to be left off of the gravy train that the BCS is almost certain to become. The bowls that need to be shaking in thier boots are the Beef O'Brady's Bowl, the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl, etc. While the 7-win bowl eligibility isn't set in stone, it's still on the table.

My guess is that the four BCS bowls survive and add the Cotton to the rotation (Big XII vs BE?) so there will be five games that would rotate the semifinals with one site hosting an additional NCG (like they do today), but also, an additional 3 bowls added to the BCS to fill out the 20-team event (Capital One, Outback, and Chik-fil-A perhaps) with teams somewhat selected by contracts, but maybe more by a BCS committee. Note that McMurphy was talking the next rotation would be either a 5-year or 10-year contract, not the 4-years the BCS has previously been on.

(04-27-2012 09:54 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  The BCS bowls are going to be affected greatly, although I suspect they end up being at least the semifinal spots that will soften the blow.

I really don't think the other bowls are going to be affected much at all. They were already second class with the BCS system, and created a viable niche.

Agreed, I really don't think this changes much for the lower tier bowls. They were a sideshow anyway (except for the schools involved). The bigger deal for the bowls would be excluding 6-6 teams.

McMurphy noted that there's a proposal on the table where the semifinal sites could be flexible based on the semifinalists' bowl tie-ins (e.g. Rose Bowl hosts a Big Ten or Pac-12 semifinalist, Sugar Bowl gets an SEC semifinalist, etc.) which actually is an improvement for the BCS bowls compared to the current system. If this is the system that gets put into place (and as soon as I saw it, this jumped out at me as a viable compromise proposal), then I think the Rose Bowl is in on it.

(04-27-2012 10:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  McMurphy noted that there's a proposal on the table where the semifinal sites could be flexible based on the semifinalists' bowl tie-ins (e.g. Rose Bowl hosts a Big Ten or Pac-12 semifinalist, Sugar Bowl gets an SEC semifinalist, etc.) which actually is an improvement for the BCS bowls compared to the current system. If this is the system that gets put into place (and as soon as I saw it, this jumped out at me as a viable compromise proposal), then I think the Rose Bowl is in on it.

That one of the purposals but that purposal could also leave $$$$ on the table especially if a city like Atlanta/Houston makes an offer for a Semifinal Game that blows what New Orleans or even LA is offering.

(04-27-2012 10:06 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  So if thats the case the current four will have to fight off the Cotton, just so they can host a semi every other year

Yup I think the Cotton becomes a BCS bowl in rotation for the semis and all that. The Big East will likely maintain a seat at the table for that system. I bet a shared tie-in by the Fiesta, Cotton, Sugar and Orange for the champ will come to fruition. We may get a somewhat lesser payout than the Big 5 in that arrangement but a multiple times over more substantial payment than the current non-AQ leagues.

(04-27-2012 10:51 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(04-27-2012 10:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  McMurphy noted that there's a proposal on the table where the semifinal sites could be flexible based on the semifinalists' bowl tie-ins (e.g. Rose Bowl hosts a Big Ten or Pac-12 semifinalist, Sugar Bowl gets an SEC semifinalist, etc.) which actually is an improvement for the BCS bowls compared to the current system. If this is the system that gets put into place (and as soon as I saw it, this jumped out at me as a viable compromise proposal), then I think the Rose Bowl is in on it.

That one of the purposals but that purposal could also leave $$$$ on the table especially if a city like Atlanta/Houston makes an offer for a Semifinal Game that blows what New Orleans or even LA is offering.

It's possible, but I think the powers that be are more wedded to the bowls than they're leading on. The Big Ten/Pac-12/Rose Bowl relationship gets all of the media play, but Mike Slive and the SEC have been wanting to use the bowls as semifinal sites from the get go (and why he has wanted to kill the on-campus semifinal suggestion, which actually originated from the "reactionary" Big Ten).

My feeling is that the semifinals will end up in the existing BCS bowls while the national championship game is granted to the highest bidder like the Super Bowl. In a way, this makes sense because if you're going to have semifinal games at neutral sites, then they need to be in places that people actually want to travel to during the winter, which is something that favors all of the current BCS bowls. (I believe this is much more of a factor than distance itself. A lot of fans are overrating driving distance since you can't guarantee a neutral site game in Indianapolis is going to be any closer to the actual participants than LA or New Orleans.)

In contrast, the championship game is location-proof - you could stick that game anywhere (just like the Super Bowl) and people (and corporate sponsors and luxury suite buyers) will go.

This is step one towards a full championship tournament. People have said forever that we'll never have a playoff. Now, it's pretty much a done deal.

Step two will be increasing it to eight teams, then sixteen. The SEC will be on board because they think they'll get five teams in a 16 team playoff. Expansion will happen and it will be a good thing.

(04-27-2012 11:21 AM)TOGC Wrote:  This is step one towards a full championship tournament. People have said forever that we'll never have a playoff. Now, it's pretty much a done deal.

Step two will be increasing it to eight teams, then sixteen. The SEC will be on board because they think they'll get five teams in a 16 team playoff. Expansion will happen and it will be a good thing.

Eh, we'll see how much "bracket creep" occurs. The big difference between football and basketball is that football *regular season* TV money is completely dominant (and why conference realignment has been such a rampant issue) compared to the postseason and even the mighty SEC wants to keep it that way. That's where the power conferences really have the advantage as opposed to number of teams that they could send to a hypothetical playoff.

A larger playoff could certainly happen down the road (and frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing an 8-team playoff at all), but you're likely seeing a 10-year or more TV deal coming out this in order to make sure that we don't have reassessments of the system in the near future.

This 4 game playoff doesn't kill the bowls any more than the current BCS championship game.

(04-27-2012 11:33 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  This 4 game playoff doesn't kill the bowls any more than the current BCS championship game.

I kind of disagree, the TV ratings for the current bowl system is/was going into the toilet.

With this "new" system unless you are one of the "hosting bowls/cities" you are going to get even less attention.

Also, some might want to call it the "Big 5" Conferences but in reality it is now the Big 3-(SEC, B1G & Pac 12) with the Big XII right behind and lagging behind it the ACC followed by the BIG EAST.

The current Non AQ's especially without the TCU, Utah, BYU & Boise State are really screwed. The BIG EAST is somewhat screwed-(saved by Basketball & Notre Dame association in other sports) but they are toast.

(04-27-2012 11:32 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-27-2012 11:21 AM)TOGC Wrote:  This is step one towards a full championship tournament. People have said forever that we'll never have a playoff. Now, it's pretty much a done deal.

Step two will be increasing it to eight teams, then sixteen. The SEC will be on board because they think they'll get five teams in a 16 team playoff. Expansion will happen and it will be a good thing.

Eh, we'll see how much "bracket creep" occurs. The big difference between football and basketball is that football *regular season* TV money is completely dominant (and why conference realignment has been such a rampant issue) compared to the postseason and even the mighty SEC wants to keep it that way. That's where the power conferences really have the advantage as opposed to number of teams that they could send to a hypothetical playoff.

A larger playoff could certainly happen down the road (and frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing an 8-team playoff at all), but you're likely seeing a 10-year or more TV deal coming out this in order to make sure that we don't have reassessments of the system in the near future.

I agree.
The longer you make the football season with extended playoffs the more underclassman will leave early for the NFL. If I am 1-2 round NFL lock, and we just finished 12-13 game season, then I have 4 more games to play...............screw that, I develop a faux injury.