Thank you Maize! for the insightful posts. On of my favorite Louisville fans/ posters.

If the ACC and Big East was to agree to a "Champions Bowl" I'd like to see the game played in a growing market like Charlotte or in Orlando. Far easier for Northern fanbases to travel to Charlotte and Orlando is a great family vacation destination.

(05-28-2012 10:38 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 08:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I've said several times that the Big East has reason to optimistic for its new TV contract, but the bowl situation likely isn't going to look very good. We can throw all the actual facts about the ACC's performance out there, but note that last year that the BCS chose a terrible ACC championship game loser (VT) over #7 Boise State and #8 Kansas State. While you might say that Boise was a victim of biases against non-AQ teams, KSU is a member of the almighty supposedly now dominant Big 12. People are going waaaaaay overboard in thinking that the ACC can't get bowl bids. Even if FSU and Clemson end up leaving for the Big 12, the remaining ACC schools can get an Orange Bowl slot. I don't think many people realize that ACC #2 gets paid more by the Chick-Fil-A than Big 12 #2 from the almighty "I can buy everything" Jerry Jones and the Cotton Bowl.

Expect the ACC to get the Orange Bowl versus SEC #2, Big Ten #2 or Notre Dame. It could also be an at-large spot. For instance, there could be the following lineup:

Rose: Big Ten vs. Pac-12
Sugar: SEC vs. Big 12
Orange: ACC vs. at-large
Fiesta: at-large vs. at-large

Here, the Fiesta becomes the semifinal site in the event that a school outside of the 5 power conferences is a top 2 team. Otherwise, the Fiesta can just pick whichever 2 schools outside of the semifinalists that it wants. 1 or 2 other bowls (e.g. Cotton, Capital One) could end up in this system, too.

To be clear, I'm not talking about the ACC actually *deserving* any top bowl spot. I'm just looking at how bowls have acted and what payouts are out there and it indicates that the ACC is still getting a high level bowl tie-in.

Now the question I have is this, if you have a Non "Big Four" school ranked 1st or 2nd which Bowl get to be that host since neither the Orange Bowl or Fiesta Bowl would be the anchor.

Now I do agree that the Orange/Fiesta Bowls could very well become @ Large vs. @ Large. No Tie-Ins just take the 2 highest ranked schools @ their choosing.

In the scenario above, it would be the Fiesta (as the Orange would have the ACC tie-in). Essentially, the Fiesta gets "the field". They get to be the "home bowl" for a top 2 semifinalists outside of the 5 power conferences while taking whoever they want in non-semifinal years. That way, they're not locked-in with a conference tie-in that they don't really want but still have access to the semifinal.

In the end, the Fiesta, and Orange bowls will still be major, but mostly non factors in playoff race. Most of the time the Champ bowl, and Rose will be the semi final games. Only on years where a 13-0 ACC or BE team breaks in will the fiesta or Orange have a shot. Unless, the champions bowl rotates between the 3.

(05-29-2012 08:11 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  In the end, the Fiesta, and Orange bowls will still be major, but mostly non factors in playoff race. Most of the time the Champ bowl, and Rose will be the semi final games. Only on years where a 13-0 ACC or BE team breaks in will the fiesta or Orange have a shot. Unless, the champions bowl rotates between the 3.

I'm pretty sure the Champions' Bowl is not going to rotate. Instead, they are bidding it out. Don't know if the contract will be one-year or longer term, but right now, they have no plans to rotate it.

(05-28-2012 04:56 PM)Maize Wrote:  Also, the last time that game had over 70K in attendence was ironically Louisville-Wake Forest...neither the matchup with Virginia Tech-Cincinnati, Kansas-Virginia Tech, Iowa-Georgia Tech, Stanford-Virginia Tech or WVU-Clemson hit the 70K in attendence mark.

The 2008 Kansas-Vtech game was 74,111 (link).

(05-28-2012 03:12 PM)k5james Wrote:  I wonder if a deal could be worked with both the Fiesta and Orange? If a BE East team wins, they go to the Orange, if a West team wins, they go to the Fiesta.

I'm sure it's pie in the sky but it would sure be sweet.

I suggested this a couple of months ago. It's something at least worth approaching the Fiesta and Orange bowl about.

(05-29-2012 10:57 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 04:56 PM)Maize Wrote:  Also, the last time that game had over 70K in attendence was ironically Louisville-Wake Forest...neither the matchup with Virginia Tech-Cincinnati, Kansas-Virginia Tech, Iowa-Georgia Tech, Stanford-Virginia Tech or WVU-Clemson hit the 70K in attendence mark.

The 2008 Kansas-Vtech game was 74,111 (link).

Thanks...stand corrected...after that game the low mark for attendence was UC-VPI in the 57K range and no game after that was above 67K...during that time period you also had schools from the Pac 12 & B1G against the ACC Champ.

So the rose will take another conf. if only 1 of the b10 or p12 qualifies for the playoff that year?

(05-29-2012 11:17 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-29-2012 10:57 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 04:56 PM)Maize Wrote:  Also, the last time that game had over 70K in attendence was ironically Louisville-Wake Forest...neither the matchup with Virginia Tech-Cincinnati, Kansas-Virginia Tech, Iowa-Georgia Tech, Stanford-Virginia Tech or WVU-Clemson hit the 70K in attendence mark.

The 2008 Kansas-Vtech game was 74,111 (link).

Thanks...stand corrected...after that game the low mark for attendence was UC-VPI in the 57K range and no game after that was above 67K...during that time period you also had schools from the Pac 12 & B1G against the ACC Champ.

The issue is that the bowls will believe what they want to believe (similar to everyone else within the college football power structure). It takes a long time to build up a bowl reputation and it takes a long time to change perceptions.

What I always tell people when analyzing any situation, whether it's a new TV deal or bowl contracts, is what would you sincerely do if you're *job* was on the line. That provides a lot more clarity than our own personal biases toward our favorite teams and conferences (which invariably cloud our thinking).

So, think about it if you're a bowl director. It's about CYA. If you lose money on picking Virginia Tech for your bowl game instead of a Big East school, then you can plausibly blame it on circumstances *other* than the choice of VT (e.g. bad non-New Years Day date, bowl fatigue, "meh" matchup, etc.). VT, for whatever reason, is considered a safe commodity in bowl circles. (It continues to amuse me when I see all of these dire predictions for ACC bowl tie-ins when we just saw last year the Sugar Bowl take an ACC championship game loser over a #8-ranked Big 12 team.) If you lose money on picking a Big East school and left a proven commodity like VT on the table, though, then you're *fired*. Your choice itself will be blamed. I'm not saying that's fair, but that's what happens.

You can extend this to TV contracts, too. No one likes to make actual bets in the entertainment business overall, not just sports. Look at this summer's slate of movies and you'll see a long line of sequels and flicks with pre-installed fan bases (e.g. comic book characters, well-known novels, etc.). Battleship is doing terribly at the box office, but the execs that greenlit that movie probably won't get the ax because a well-known brand like Battleship is something that Hollywood accepts spending money on. The execs that greenlit a similar box office bomb in John Carter (which also happens to star Taylor Kitsch), though, have already gotten fired because "they should have known better" than to spend so much money on a little-known brand. (Seriously: the *chairman* of Walt Disney Studios got fired for the John Carter flop even though The Avengers, which is currently breaking box office records all over the place, was also greenlit by him.)

Similarly, if you're a TV executive and you end up losing money on a TV contract with, say, Notre Dame, people won't knock you for it. ND is such a sterling brand name that their performance on the field will get the blame (not the TV exec itself). A TV exec spending a lot of money on a conference that doesn't have the same track record, though, is putting himself/herself on the line. That's the human side of the equation here.

(05-29-2012 12:04 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  So the rose will take another conf. if only 1 of the b10 or p12 qualifies for the playoff that year?

It depends.

If USC is #1, Alabama is #4 and there's no Big Ten semifinalist, for instance, then the Rose Bowl would be #1 USC vs. #4 Alabama.

If the situation is reversed where Alabama is #1 and USC is #4, then the Sugar/Champions Bowl would be #1 Alabama vs. #4 USC. The Rose Bowl would then be the Big Ten champ vs. the second selection from the Pac-12.

My understanding is that the Rose would only take a non-Big Ten/Pac-12 team where it's hosting a semifinal under this provision (meaning one team from the Big Ten or Pac-12 is a semifinal "host"). If the Rose isn't a semifinal, then it's definitely going to be Big Ten vs. Pac-12.

What will be interesting to see is whether there's a provision that if the Big Ten and Pac-12 end up with semifinalists that they'll both play in the Rose Bowl regardless of ranking (and the same provision would be in place for the SEC and Big 12 with their new bowl). For instance, if USC is #1 and Michigan is #3 while Alabama is #2 and Texas is #4, then the Rose Bowl would be #1 USC vs. #3 Michigan and the Sugar/Champions would be #2 Alabama vs. #4 Texas in order to preserve the traditional tie-ins.

(05-29-2012 12:33 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-29-2012 12:04 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  So the rose will take another conf. if only 1 of the b10 or p12 qualifies for the playoff that year?

It depends.

If USC is #1, Alabama is #4 and there's no Big Ten semifinalist, for instance, then the Rose Bowl would be #1 USC vs. #4 Alabama.

If the situation is reversed where Alabama is #1 and USC is #4, then the Sugar/Champions Bowl would be #1 Alabama vs. #4 USC. The Rose Bowl would then be the Big Ten champ vs. the second selection from the Pac-12.

My understanding is that the Rose would only take a non-Big Ten/Pac-12 team where it's hosting a semifinal under this provision (meaning one team from the Big Ten or Pac-12 is a semifinal "host"). If the Rose isn't a semifinal, then it's definitely going to be Big Ten vs. Pac-12.

What will be interesting to see is whether there's a provision that if the Big Ten and Pac-12 end up with semifinalists that they'll both play in the Rose Bowl regardless of ranking (and the same provision would be in place for the SEC and Big 12 with their new bowl). For instance, if USC is #1 and Michigan is #3 while Alabama is #2 and Texas is #4, then the Rose Bowl would be #1 USC vs. #3 Michigan and the Sugar/Champions would be #2 Alabama vs. #4 Texas in order to preserve the traditional tie-ins.

Im curious Tank, you have said you believe the bowl prospects for the Big East champ do not look promising. What do you see as the most likley landing spot for the Big East champ?

Are we sure we have this right though (obviously nothing is in stone)?

We have heard reports that the Rose/Champs Bowl would be Big 10/PAC 12 or Big 12/SEC no matter what. The second place teams would simply get slotted in. If not it would be At-Large teams.

The top four teams would be completely separate from the BCS bowls, with only the sites/locations being preserved with respect to tie in.

I personally think that the scenario we all think will come to fruition (actual BCS Bowls used for the semifinals) will come to pass. It wouldn't make sense for the Rose Bowl to be obligated to take a 9-3 second place team from the B1G or Pac-12 if there are better At-Large teams.

The question is will the actual Bowls be used as the semifinal games or will the Bowls select the matchups after the top four are already scratched off the list. I wouldn't see why ANY of the BCS bowls would turn down the offer to host a semi-final game.

(05-29-2012 12:44 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  Im curious Tank, you have said you believe the bowl prospects for the Big East champ do not look promising. What do you see as the most likley landing spot for the Big East champ?

Probably the Champs Sports Bowl or a bowl in that same payout tier. That might sound low to people here used to a BCS bowl tie-in, but look at what the MWC and C-USA have had for their champs up to this point (Las Vegas, Liberty, etc.) and the Champs Sports Bowl is a whole lot better with 3 or 4 times the payout. To be sure, the new Big East is better than both the MWC and C-USA, but it's realistically a very tough spot bowl-wise. It was hard enough for the Big East to get great tie-ins even with West Virginia, which is a school that most bowls unambiguously like.

I think you're going to end up seeing a further financial stratification among the bowls that matches the stratification among the conferences themselves, especially if bowl eligibility requires 7 wins instead of 6 wins. Always remember that Jim Delany and Mike Slive aren't doing anyone else any favors. For instance, stricter bowl eligibility requirements might reduce the total number of Big Ten and SEC schools going to bowls, but there's going to be a massive bidding war for, say, Big Ten #5 (which virtually always has 7 wins) compared to now. It's a classic case of cutting down the overall supply in order to increase the price for what's left on the market. Meanwhile, I could easily see the top end bowls signing more tie-ins from the Big Ten and SEC (e.g. Fiesta signs with Big Ten #2, Orange signs with SEC #2), etc., and that's going to fill up the marquee slots quickly.

(05-29-2012 01:12 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Are we sure we have this right though (obviously nothing is in stone)?

We have heard reports that the Rose/Champs Bowl would be Big 10/PAC 12 or Big 12/SEC no matter what. The second place teams would simply get slotted in. If not it would be At-Large teams.

The top four teams would be completely separate from the BCS bowls, with only the sites/locations being preserved with respect to tie in.

No, Dodd is saying that the actual Rose Bowl would host the semifinal game if, say, USC is #1. If the Big Ten champ isn't a semifinalist, then it would be kicked out of the Rose Bowl for that particular year. This is consistent with several other earlier reports (including from Stewart Mandel and Brett McMurphy) stating that this was the most popular/likely playoff proposal coming out of last month's BCS meetings.

Quote:I personally think that the scenario we all think will come to fruition (actual BCS Bowls used for the semifinals) will come to pass. It wouldn't make sense for the Rose Bowl to be obligated to take a 9-3 second place team from the B1G or Pac-12 if there are better At-Large teams.

I think you're mixing two concepts. When there's Big Ten semifinalist and no Pac-12 semifinalist (or vice versa), then yes, the Rose Bowl would have the semifinal with its semifinalist conference tie-in and the opponent is a semifinalist from outside of the Big Ten and Pac-12. However, IF the Rose Bowl isn't a semifinal in a particular year, then it still WANTS to take a 9-3 Big Ten/Pac-12 team. The Rose Bowl having to take an MWC team against its will like it did 2 years ago is an "obligation", while the Rose Bowl taking 9-3 Big Ten and Pac-12 schools that it actually has contracts with is free will.

Quote:The question is will the actual Bowls be used as the semifinal games or will the Bowls select the matchups after the top four are already scratched off the list. I wouldn't see why ANY of the BCS bowls would turn down the offer to host a semi-final game.

I agree with this as a general matter, provided that it's set up as Dodd has described in order to preserve the traditional tie-ins. The Rose Bowl doesn't just want a biennial rotating semifinal that could include teams from any random conference. It wants a semifinal IF it has a Pac-12 and/or Big Ten team participating.

(05-29-2012 01:14 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Probably the Champs Sports Bowl or a bowl in that same payout tier. That might sound low to people here used to a BCS bowl tie-in, but look at what the MWC and C-USA have had for their champs up to this point (Las Vegas, Liberty, etc.) and the Champs Sports Bowl is a whole lot better with 3 or 4 times the payout. To be sure, the new Big East is better than both the MWC and C-USA, but it's realistically a very tough spot bowl-wise. It was hard enough for the Big East to get great tie-ins even with West Virginia, which is a school that most bowls unambiguously like.

The Champs Bowl payout is NOT 3 or 4 times the payout of the Liberty Bowl.

The Champs Bowl payout is about $2.3 Million per team and the Liberty Bowl payout is about $1.5 Million per team.

If the Big East champ cannot get a better bowl tie in than the Liberty Bowl then we are going to be in trouble.

(05-29-2012 01:14 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-29-2012 12:44 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  Im curious Tank, you have said you believe the bowl prospects for the Big East champ do not look promising. What do you see as the most likley landing spot for the Big East champ?

Probably the Champs Sports Bowl or a bowl in that same payout tier. That might sound low to people here used to a BCS bowl tie-in, but look at what the MWC and C-USA have had for their champs up to this point (Las Vegas, Liberty, etc.) and the Champs Sports Bowl is a whole lot better with 3 or 4 times the payout. To be sure, the new Big East is better than both the MWC and C-USA, but it's realistically a very tough spot bowl-wise. It was hard enough for the Big East to get great tie-ins even with West Virginia, which is a school that most bowls unambiguously like.

I think you're going to end up seeing a further financial stratification among the bowls that matches the stratification among the conferences themselves, especially if bowl eligibility requires 7 wins instead of 6 wins. Always remember that Jim Delany and Mike Slive aren't doing anyone else any favors. For instance, stricter bowl eligibility requirements might reduce the total number of Big Ten and SEC schools going to bowls, but there's going to be a massive bidding war for, say, Big Ten #5 (which virtually always has 7 wins) compared to now. It's a classic case of cutting down the overall supply in order to increase the price for what's left on the market. Meanwhile, I could easily see the top end bowls signing more tie-ins from the Big Ten and SEC (e.g. Fiesta signs with Big Ten #2, Orange signs with SEC #2), etc., and that's going to fill up the marquee slots quickly.

Pretty grim outlook. I guess we better hope that FedEx and our new commissioner (is Captain America available?) can pull a rabbit out of a hat.

(05-29-2012 01:49 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(05-29-2012 01:14 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-29-2012 12:44 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  Im curious Tank, you have said you believe the bowl prospects for the Big East champ do not look promising. What do you see as the most likley landing spot for the Big East champ?

Probably the Champs Sports Bowl or a bowl in that same payout tier. That might sound low to people here used to a BCS bowl tie-in, but look at what the MWC and C-USA have had for their champs up to this point (Las Vegas, Liberty, etc.) and the Champs Sports Bowl is a whole lot better with 3 or 4 times the payout. To be sure, the new Big East is better than both the MWC and C-USA, but it's realistically a very tough spot bowl-wise. It was hard enough for the Big East to get great tie-ins even with West Virginia, which is a school that most bowls unambiguously like.

I think you're going to end up seeing a further financial stratification among the bowls that matches the stratification among the conferences themselves, especially if bowl eligibility requires 7 wins instead of 6 wins. Always remember that Jim Delany and Mike Slive aren't doing anyone else any favors. For instance, stricter bowl eligibility requirements might reduce the total number of Big Ten and SEC schools going to bowls, but there's going to be a massive bidding war for, say, Big Ten #5 (which virtually always has 7 wins) compared to now. It's a classic case of cutting down the overall supply in order to increase the price for what's left on the market. Meanwhile, I could easily see the top end bowls signing more tie-ins from the Big Ten and SEC (e.g. Fiesta signs with Big Ten #2, Orange signs with SEC #2), etc., and that's going to fill up the marquee slots quickly.

Pretty grim outlook. I guess we better hope that FedEx and our new commissioner (is Captain America available?) can pull a rabbit out of a hat.

I predicted a while back that the Big East champ could possibly get shut out of a tie in with the top 4 or 5 bowls, but it's a helluva slide from those down to having our champ play in the Liberty Bowl.

There are approximately 11 or 12 bowls below the top 4 or 5 bowls that have a higher payout than the Liberty Bowl.

(05-29-2012 11:17 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-29-2012 10:57 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 04:56 PM)Maize Wrote:  Also, the last time that game had over 70K in attendence was ironically Louisville-Wake Forest...neither the matchup with Virginia Tech-Cincinnati, Kansas-Virginia Tech, Iowa-Georgia Tech, Stanford-Virginia Tech or WVU-Clemson hit the 70K in attendence mark.

The 2008 Kansas-Vtech game was 74,111 (link).

Thanks...stand corrected...after that game the low mark for attendence was UC-VPI in the 57K range and no game after that was above 67K...during that time period you also had schools from the Pac 12 & B1G against the ACC Champ.

The economy did hit the perverbial _____er in 2008; could have something to do with the attendence since then. VPI is tired of the same old same old in my opinion and that could be a facor. UoL and KU were exited as they could be to be going to the Orange Bowl. Not defending the ACC cause I hate the ACC, but there are other things that play into bowl attendance. All the bowls would have better match-ups if they gave up the silly non-sense of automatic conference tie-ins.

(05-29-2012 01:42 PM)3601 Wrote:  The Champs Bowl payout is NOT 3 or 4 times the payout of the Liberty Bowl.

The Champs Bowl payout is about $2.3 Million per team and the Liberty Bowl payout is about $1.5 Million per team.

If the Big East champ cannot get a better bowl tie in than the Liberty Bowl then we are going to be in trouble.

My bad. I thought the Champs Bowl was higher than that and the Liberty Bowl was lower than that. Anyway, just break it down by options according to payouts higher than the Champs Bowl:

* Rose Bowl - Set with Big Ten/Pac-12
* Sugar Bowl - Will have SEC tie-in at the very least (and possibly Champions Bowl site)
* Orange Bowl - Probably still wants ACC tie-in and then an at-large or B1G #2/SEC #2
* Fiesta Bowl - Probably wants at-larges or B1G #2/Big 12 #2
* Capital One - Big Ten/SEC - no reason to change that
* Cotton - Big 12/SEC - no reason to change that
* Outback - Big Ten/SEC - no reason to change that
* Chick-Fil-A - SEC/ACC - even if ACC loses FSU and Clemson, still likely won't change
* Alamo - Big 12/Pac-12 - definitely wants Big 12 team and this is best Pac-12 team after Rose, so likely won't change
* Insight - Big Ten/Big 12 - maybe a Pac-12 team gets swapped in for one of these, but not a Big East team
* Gator - Big Ten/SEC - no reason to change that

Every bowl that pays out more than the Champs Sports Bowl has a pretty compelling matchup already. Can you realistically displace a Big Ten or SEC tie-in anywhere (unless the Big Ten or SEC actually chooses to leave)? Can you realistically displace a Big 12 team in a Texas-based bowl? Those situations aren't likely, which means there aren't really many/any move-up options. Now, there are a few intriguing bowls that actually have lower payouts than the Champs, such as the Sun and Holiday Bowls.