Look - I know that people think that I'm just here to be a downer, but I'm just reflexively against drinking the Kool-Aid. I've continuously said that the Big East TV contract will likely make people happy (or at least satisfied). The bowl situation, though, realistically isn't good. Look at how the bowls treated the Big East even with West Virginia, who the top bowls actually liked. The assumption is that people are going to have the same mentality going forward. You can hope/pray people change their mentalities, but look inward to see whether that's realistic.

I don't expect a huge change overall in how willing they'll be to pick. I think the 12 teams over 10 helps, but that the removal of the 2 team limit balances that out. Practically I don't think several of the bowls will want to pick below the high mid-high teens though and don't think the BCS (or whatever it's going to be called) will really want a lot of barely ranked teams in either. If you have a Big East champion sitting as one of the higher at large ranked candidates at say #6 at 12-1 though, I think they'll make the cut. At #10 they probably won't (maybe Boise State would give recent attention). In between depends on the circumstances.

(06-23-2012 11:57 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Look - I know that people think that I'm just here to be a downer, but I'm just reflexively against drinking the Kool-Aid. I've continuously said that the Big East TV contract will likely make people happy (or at least satisfied). The bowl situation, though, realistically isn't good. Look at how the bowls treated the Big East even with West Virginia, who the top bowls actually liked. The assumption is that people are going to have the same mentality going forward. You can hope/pray people change their mentalities, but look inward to see whether that's realistic.

I think you undersell the Big East champion going forward. A Big East champion emerging from a 14 team field is much more likely to be a decently ranked team that it was from an 8 team field. I also tend to think having more southern "football" first schools will factor into the performance. When the Big East champ is a Top-10 team I do not believe they will end up in the Pin Stripe or Liberty Bowl. When the Big East champ is at #19, well yes, their fate may be a less attractive bowl. I guess Im saying that the Big East champ, when strong, will likley get a nice bowl---but it will be a bowls choice. The Big East simply isnt strong enough at this point to get a top tier bowl to sign a tie in. On the up side, I think more years than not---the Big East champ is very likley to be ranked in the top 10.

(06-23-2012 11:46 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  You can go back to the ratings (don't have access to them now on mobile), but virtually all I the lowest rated BCS bowl games featured either a non-AQ school or the Big East. The ACC was in some dog games, too. The David vs. Goliath game that everyone remembers - Boise State vs. Oklahoma, drew lower ratings than blowouts featuring sexy king matchups in the Rose Bowl (USC vs. Michigan) and Sugar Bowl (LSU vs. Notre Dame). Regardless, I'm not the one you have to convince. Let me know when the bowls act differently and pick the David teams willingly. The only discretionary non-AQ pick in the history of the BCS system was Boise State to play TCU in 2009, which was basically the powers that be relegating 2 Davids to play each other. Tell me why you think the bowls are going to change course and I'm all ears.

I've looked at the data, and to start out the conversation, I think it is tough data to analyze. There are so many variables (day of the week, time slot, network, opponent record and interest). First off, you have to control for the championship game and the Rose, as those two are always 1-2 in ratings. I also think you also have to control for network (Fox and ESPN games were worse than ABC). It is important to look at apples to apples as much as possible.

One of the best apples to apples comparison is 2009. The 2009 Fiesta and 2009 Orange were on back to back nights, same network, no conflicts with other sporting events, although the Fiesta was on a Monday, which is typically a little better for ratings since it is the first non-Monday Night Football day. Anyway, the Fiesta with 2 undefeated teams got a 8.23 rating, the Orange with two 2 loss teams (Iowa and GT) got a 6.8. The Sugar that year with an undefeated Big East team and a one loss Florida was 8.5, on a Saturday, two nights before the Fiesta. Seems to me the undefeated teams held their own that year.

Another good year to look at is 2006. Here you have the ND/LSU game and the Boise/OU games on two nights apart, same network. ND is one of the biggest draws and LSU not shabby either, yet it only modestly outdrew the Fiesta that year (9.29 to 8.4). The Orange was way back at 6.9 with two ho-hum 2-loss teams.

Back to the Rose Bowl which has been in the same TV window, throughout. The Wisc-TCU game drew an impressive 11.26. It was basically the same rating as USC-Ill (11.11), USC-Penn St (11.76), Mich-Texas (12.4) and OU/Wash St (11.3). It is even more impressive when you consider that the TCU-Wiscy game was on ESPN, while the other games on ABC, which tends to have higher numbers.

I can't say that undefeated non-AQ teams were better than their 2 loss counterparts, because I think there are still so many variables to really make conclusions. But I don't see evidence that putting an undefeated team in a BCS bowl has hurt ratings relative to the other games in an apples to apples comparisons.

(06-22-2012 11:50 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-22-2012 10:09 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  In theory, yes. In practice, very likely no. Everything that I've seen and heard says that the top bowls outside of the semifinals will never have to take an "undesirable" team again. No one is going to be forced upon them in the manner that the non-AQ rule forced schools like Utah, Boise State, Hawaii and TCU into BCS bowls.

Here's the problem - those David/Goliath matchups did well in the TV ratings. In an otherwise meaningless consolation game, David vs. Goliath provided a great story line.

Agreed. And could again, assuming the 'Goliath' is not too wounded a giant by the time the season runs down and that the 'David' would be a good local draw or has a solid traveling fanbase.

Cheers,
Neil

I still believe the Big East needs at least one Florida New Years Day game and other regional matchups in Florida, New York, and Texas. Bowl games are still exhibition games that do not determine the national champion anymore, so lets pick so some cities that fans would want to travel to.

(06-23-2012 12:08 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(06-23-2012 11:57 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Look - I know that people think that I'm just here to be a downer, but I'm just reflexively against drinking the Kool-Aid. I've continuously said that the Big East TV contract will likely make people happy (or at least satisfied). The bowl situation, though, realistically isn't good. Look at how the bowls treated the Big East even with West Virginia, who the top bowls actually liked. The assumption is that people are going to have the same mentality going forward. You can hope/pray people change their mentalities, but look inward to see whether that's realistic.

I think you undersell the Big East champion going forward. A Big East champion emerging from a 14 team field is much more likely to be a decently ranked team that it was from an 8 team field. I also tend to think having more southern "football" first schools will factor into the performance. When the Big East champ is a Top-10 team I do not believe they will end up in the Pin Stripe or Liberty Bowl. When the Big East champ is at #19, well yes, their fate may be a less attractive bowl. I guess Im saying that the Big East champ, when strong, will likley get a nice bowl---but it will be a bowls choice. The Big East simply isnt strong enough at this point to get a top tier bowl to sign a tie in. On the up side, I think more years than not---the Big East champ is very likley to be ranked in the top 10.

I'm just going by history. Ever since 2006, which is the first year that there were 10 BCS bowl slots (the national championship game counting as a BCS bowl), either a non-AQ school or the Big East champ has been picked last every single time. That includes #3 Cincinnati in 2009 and, just this past year, a #6 Boise State team got passed over. That's how the bowls have *acted* - they have looked at non-AQ schools and the Big East champs as schools that they were forced to take against their will. Everything that has been reported indicates that the bowls will have even *more* discretion in who they want to pick going forward. You can hope that the bowls will change their actions, but indications are that what they really want is the ability to take 3rd or 4th SEC and Big Ten schools. Note that the one thing that Jim Delany and Mike Slive completely agreed upon was removing any type of cap on the number of schools taken from a conference for the BCS bowls. That's the bargain that the non-AQ schools have made - more money and a top 4 playoff, but they're giving up ever sniffing the Rose Bowl or Sugar Bowl again unless they make it into the semifinals.

We also have to note that the non-AQ conferences are all significantly weaker. TCU, Utah and Boise State have all moved up, which means that the non-AQs have very little to stand on right now.

If you recall the analogy that I've used before, the semifinals are the Oscars (based on merit), while the bowls are movie theaters (where they'll show brand name movies even if they're slammed by the critics because they sell tickets).

Well... the ACC doesn't have a direct tie-in either. They don't partially own the Orange Bowl even though ACC nuts act like they do. If we get a 9-4 ACC champ, why would one of the Bowls want them, especially if it isn't a Va Tech or FSU/Clemson? So really, the Champions and the Rose are the only bowls that have completely shut off access. Now if 3/4 semi-final teams feature "Big 4" schools, or perhaps 4/4 on many occasions, where do those Bowls go to fill slots? If they look within they water down their own product with consolation games. If they look outside, they are probably selecting the best of the best outside the top four, so they can still market the game.

We don't have nearly enough information to make any presumptions. But based on this report, if we are getting six games, then I don't see what the "non-AQ's" are complaining about. There are two extra slots. Is a #6 Boise going to be omitted from what are supposedly the top 6 Bowl games? Not a chance.

Then we have to find out what the rotation will be. There will always be an East/West split. The Rose Bowl will not be paired with the Fiesta. So that is always going to leave a regionally viable Bowl for the Big East, especially with the expansion out west. That means the Fiesta can look strongly at a western Big East club that is worthy enough. The Orange Bowl is still viable for our Eastern clubs. If the ACC and SEC want the Chick-Fil-A Bowl then let them have it, assuming that is even in the rotation.

What it is going to come down to on most years is the Orange Bowl going for a 2-3 loss Big 10 or Pac 12 team over a one loss BE team. I still don't think it will be as obvious a choice as people think it will be. Yeah the Orange Bowl will obviously lean toward power conferences over us. But keep in mind we still have another out with the Fiesta Bowl, and the west is where our Football prowess potentially lies. If USF/UCF ever become major factors, then those options are equally viable to not all, but most schools in the ACC.

(06-23-2012 03:34 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Well... the ACC doesn't have a direct tie-in either. They don't partially own the Orange Bowl even though ACC nuts act like they do. If we get a 9-4 ACC champ, why would one of the Bowls want them, especially if it isn't a Va Tech or FSU/Clemson? So really, the Champions and the Rose are the only bowls that have completely shut off access. Now if 3/4 semi-final teams feature "Big 4" schools, or perhaps 4/4 on many occasions, where do those Bowls go to fill slots? If they look within they water down their own product with consolation games. If they look outside, they are probably selecting the best of the best outside the top four, so they can still market the game.

We don't have nearly enough information to make any presumptions. But based on this report, if we are getting six games, then I don't see what the "non-AQ's" are complaining about. There are two extra slots. Is a #6 Boise going to be omitted from what are supposedly the top 6 Bowl games? Not a chance.

Then we have to find out what the rotation will be. There will always be an East/West split. The Rose Bowl will not be paired with the Fiesta. So that is always going to leave a regionally viable Bowl for the Big East, especially with the expansion out west. That means the Fiesta can look strongly at a western Big East club that is worthy enough. The Orange Bowl is still viable for our Eastern clubs. If the ACC and SEC want the Chick-Fil-A Bowl then let them have it, assuming that is even in the rotation.

What it is going to come down to on most years is the Orange Bowl going for a 2-3 loss Big 10 or Pac 12 team over a one loss BE team. I still don't think it will be as obvious a choice as people think it will be. Yeah the Orange Bowl will obviously lean toward power conferences over us. But keep in mind we still have another out with the Fiesta Bowl, and the west is where our Football prowess potentially lies. If USF/UCF ever become major factors, then those options are equally viable to not all, but most schools in the ACC.

I'll have to disagree. Those extra slots last year, for instance, likely would have gone to Arkansas (for sure) and maybe Kansas State or Oklahoma. I'm not sure why people are thinking bowls are going to change the way that they act. If I'm wrong when they announce further details, then I'll gladly and fully issue a mea culpa, but I honestly don't think I will be. Just go back through the history of rankings and you'll pretty easily find at least 2 power conference teams in the top 14 that didn't get invites every single year, many of which didn't receive invites solely because of the 2 team cap on conferences. This system is NOT changing for the better for the little guys. Have you seen an on-the-record quote from anyone other than the 5 power conferences and Notre Dame during any of these BCS meetings? They are controlling this entire process, and that's not me saying that, but rather every single reporter that has been covering these meetings that has been saying that.

Kansas St? Give me a break. Even off big wins against OU in CCG's, nobody wants them as a consolation game over a perennial top 10 program that Peterson's Broncos have been. The Fiesta Bowl groaned when they won the Big 12 back in 2003. They aren't a national brand.

Not buying OU either. Not after a brutal loss to Ok. St. No big bowls are going to take programs coming off that kind of loss. Maybe different circumstances, I will concede that.

Boise/Arkansas would have been the game in the Chick-Fil-A bowl last year.

I will use the same logic as you, I don't know why people insist that mid tier schools in the so-called power conferences would get preference over other clubs that clearly display a better product on the field. The only time preference to those clubs will be given will be when the Rose Bowl or Champions bowl are selecting their match ups.

I think the match ups would be the following under the new system:

2011: Wisconsin/Oregon, Ark/K-St, Va Tech/Michigan, Boise St/USC (SEC)

I think it depends upon which bowls are the semi-finalists play in and which bowls will be picking the remaining 8 teams.

And of course, the order of choosing would be important as well.

Let's say the semis were in the Sugar and Fiesta last year.

Chosen by Selection Committee:
Sugar - LSU vs Oregon
Fiesta - Okla St vs Alabama

Contractual Bowls
Rose - Wisconsin vs Stanford
Cotton (defacto Champions Bowl this year) - Kansas State vs Arkansas

Chosen by Bowls:
That leaves the Peach and the Orange with the choosing from amongst West Virginia, Clemson, Michigan, VT, Boise, Oklahoma and Georgia

I see the Peach choosing Clemson vs Georgia and the Orange choosing Michigan vs VT

It could go entirely different if it's a different bowl combo choosing.

Chosen by Selection Committee:
Rose - LSU vs Oregon
Peach - Okla State vs Alabama

Contractual Bowl:
Sugar (let's say the defacto Champions Bowl) - K-State vs Arkansas

Chosen by Bowls:
Orange - Clemson vs Michigan
Fiesta - Stanford vs Wisconsin
Cotton - Baylor vs Boise

The above are examples, not definitive choices.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-23-2012 10:27 AM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(06-23-2012 10:13 AM)Bull Wrote:  I appreciate all the info. I guess we'll have to evaluate over the years how it pans out... Isn't it true that without AQ, teams like Hawaii, TCU, Boise still did get invites... May not have been a selection comittee, but it was still at the discretion of the BCS and the bowls. So there has been some notion to give a well performing non-major a slot. (Or did the 1 team conference limit make this argument moot?) Call me a cockeyed optimist, but I have to believe that an 0, 1 loss BE team gets a slot in a major bowl. 3 loss certainly won't, but that's probably appropriate. We may be losing the 'gray area' 2 loss access... Wouldn't it be a nuclear uprising if 0,1 loss BE teams were shut out of a 12 slot bowl series? Heck, that team should be ranked near or in the top 10 anyway, right?

Bull--originally the BCS did not give schools like that a slot. Tulane went undefeated in 1998 and was ignored. Boise and Utah were both also ignored after undefeated seasons. Scott Cowen, the president of Tulane University, organized many of the "left out" school presidents to crusade against the exclusion of the BCS. Fearing increasing public, legal, and political pressure whipped up by Scotts group--the BCS enacted specific reforms that provided clear rules for access by non-AQ teams in 2004--

The highest ranking non-AQ conference champion above #12 or if it is ranked #16 (or higher) and is ahead of an AQ champion. Only one non-AQ team was eligible for this automatic berth.

Those appearances by Boise, TCU, and Hawaii were a direct result of those rule changes that were designed to provide access to non-AQ's. With the elimination of AQ, those rules requiring automatic berths when non-AQ's meet certain requirements no longer exist. The non-AQ school fought hardest for elimination of AQ. In the end I belive they will find they are much worse off that they were under the old system. The Bowls never really wanted to take the non-Aq's---now they that they dont have to--they wont. Perhaps after a few years in this system the left outs will realize how badly they have been screwed and will be able to organize an effor similar to Scotts---but thats going to take a while.

Ah... did not know all that, I'll have to read up. My team was FCS way back then... You are making a strong case that we're in a lot of trouble here.

If AQ's are eliminated then the Orange Bowl is no longer contractually obligated to take a 2011 Clemson per say. So why do people still think they get a guaranteed spot in this new system if the Orange has better teams they wish to exploit? Even though Va Tech got swept by the Tigers, they had a better ranking and still would have been as viable as Clemson, who were blown out by the Gamecocks in last year's finale.

None of the Bowls are contractually obligated to anybody. Until they rework the language that says, "so and so that meets this criteria is guaranteed a berth in this bowl." Everything is up in the air.

The Champions Bowl and Rose Bowl are the only ones with exclusive rights the their conference affiliates. That leaves eight spots to select the most compelling of match ups. Boise has always been an intrigue. I think SMU/Houston could also be an intrigue perhaps even for the Champions bowl if they can get to a TCU level of success. Some match ups involving Big East clubs can still offer compelling story lines.

Let's be honest, in the past it was WVU and everybody else. No other school consistently performed well in the big games from our conference outside of the Mountaineers. So you replace them with Boise, with a number of programs with tons of potential? I don't see the huge downgrade here, outside of losing some academic prestige and reputable schools like Pitt and Cuse, which were basketball and TV market losses more than anything.

(06-23-2012 07:58 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  If AQ's are eliminated then the Orange Bowl is no longer contractually obligated to take a 2011 Clemson per say. So why do people still think they get a guaranteed spot in this new system if the Orange has better teams they wish to exploit? Even though Va Tech got swept by the Tigers, they had a better ranking and still would have been as viable as Clemson, who were blown out by the Gamecocks in last year's finale.

None of the Bowls are contractually obligated to anybody. Until they rework the language that says, "so and so that meets this criteria is guaranteed a berth in this bowl." Everything is up in the air.

The Champions Bowl and Rose Bowl are the only ones with exclusive rights the their conference affiliates. That leaves eight spots to select the most compelling of match ups. Boise has always been an intrigue. I think SMU/Houston could also be an intrigue perhaps even for the Champions bowl if they can get to a TCU level of success. Some match ups involving Big East clubs can still offer compelling story lines.

Let's be honest, in the past it was WVU and everybody else. No other school consistently performed well in the big games from our conference outside of the Mountaineers. So you replace them with Boise, with a number of programs with tons of potential? I don't see the huge downgrade here, outside of losing some academic prestige and reputable schools like Pitt and Cuse, which were basketball and TV market losses more than anything.

If you are referring to my post, I think the Orange is probably sick of VT and would assume Clemson, fresh off an ACC championship and going to their first BCS (now Event) Bowl would be an excellent choice. Remember we have the advantage of hindsight.

The Champions Bowl is contractual to the SEC and Big 12 so they couldn't go for an SMU/Houston match-up if they wanted to, and based upon last year's regular season, I highly doubt they would want to considering SMU was only 7-5. Not being mean, just being realistic.

A 9-3 West Virginia would be a tough sell if the new Event Bowls were in place last year as well. A 12-1 Houston team might be attractive to a Cotton Bowl vs Baylor. But that just potentially bumps Boise out unless the Fiesta likes a Stanford vs Boise match-up over Wisconsin. I would think they would worry about attendance with that match-up though.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-23-2012 11:58 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-23-2012 07:58 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  If AQ's are eliminated then the Orange Bowl is no longer contractually obligated to take a 2011 Clemson per say. So why do people still think they get a guaranteed spot in this new system if the Orange has better teams they wish to exploit? Even though Va Tech got swept by the Tigers, they had a better ranking and still would have been as viable as Clemson, who were blown out by the Gamecocks in last year's finale.

None of the Bowls are contractually obligated to anybody. Until they rework the language that says, "so and so that meets this criteria is guaranteed a berth in this bowl." Everything is up in the air.

The Champions Bowl and Rose Bowl are the only ones with exclusive rights the their conference affiliates. That leaves eight spots to select the most compelling of match ups. Boise has always been an intrigue. I think SMU/Houston could also be an intrigue perhaps even for the Champions bowl if they can get to a TCU level of success. Some match ups involving Big East clubs can still offer compelling story lines.

Let's be honest, in the past it was WVU and everybody else. No other school consistently performed well in the big games from our conference outside of the Mountaineers. So you replace them with Boise, with a number of programs with tons of potential? I don't see the huge downgrade here, outside of losing some academic prestige and reputable schools like Pitt and Cuse, which were basketball and TV market losses more than anything.

If you are referring to my post, I think the Orange is probably sick of VT and would assume Clemson, fresh off an ACC championship and going to their first BCS (now Event) Bowl would be an excellent choice. Remember we have the advantage of hindsight.

Cheers,
Neil

Clemson has a disaster pick by the Orange Bowl last year...as Clemson sold only half of its 17,000 ticket allotment for the 2012 Orange Bowl Game...so I highly doubt anyone at the Orange Bowl wants Clemson to come back anytime soon.

Something to remember--TV ratings do not pay the bowl committee's caviar and strip club bills. Ticket sales do. So as long as the bowls believe that a 9-3 Texas will sell more tickets than an 12-1 Boise or Houston or Louisville, Texas will get the spot.

What happens when it's a choice between a midlevel power-conference team and a Big East powerhouse? Say Big XII No. 3 TCU vs 12-1 Big East champ Houston for the last spot? Or Boise State vs Oregon State or Cal? We just saw Kansas State get dissed by the Sugar Bowl.

(06-24-2012 07:25 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Something to remember--TV ratings do not pay the bowl committee's caviar and strip club bills. Ticket sales do. So as long as the bowls believe that a 9-3 Texas will sell more tickets than an 12-1 Boise or Houston or Louisville, Texas will get the spot.

What happens when it's a choice between a midlevel power-conference team and a Big East powerhouse? Say Big XII No. 3 TCU vs 12-1 Big East champ Houston for the last spot? Or Boise State vs Oregon State or Cal? We just saw Kansas State get dissed by the Sugar Bowl.

I wouldn't say that.

Last year, Texas didn't even sell 4,000 bowl tickets to the Holiday Bowl.
From article below:

The Holiday Bowl predicted about 60,000 tickets would be sold, but Texas had peddled barely 3,600 of its 11,000 allotment by Tuesday, according to the UT ticket office. The Longhorns donated the rest to the Marine Corps, Navy, YMCA and a youth group named STAR/PAL, according to Bruce Binkowski of the San Diego Bowl Association.

Boise St has brought HUGE crowds to major bowl games...(half the state seems to show up), heck, Boise St travels great to the East Coast for REGULAR SEASON GAMES (i.e. See Washington, DC and Atlanta games), plus Louisville fans would show up in large numbers for a bowl game as well.

(06-24-2012 06:57 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(06-23-2012 11:58 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-23-2012 07:58 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  If AQ's are eliminated then the Orange Bowl is no longer contractually obligated to take a 2011 Clemson per say. So why do people still think they get a guaranteed spot in this new system if the Orange has better teams they wish to exploit? Even though Va Tech got swept by the Tigers, they had a better ranking and still would have been as viable as Clemson, who were blown out by the Gamecocks in last year's finale.

None of the Bowls are contractually obligated to anybody. Until they rework the language that says, "so and so that meets this criteria is guaranteed a berth in this bowl." Everything is up in the air.

The Champions Bowl and Rose Bowl are the only ones with exclusive rights the their conference affiliates. That leaves eight spots to select the most compelling of match ups. Boise has always been an intrigue. I think SMU/Houston could also be an intrigue perhaps even for the Champions bowl if they can get to a TCU level of success. Some match ups involving Big East clubs can still offer compelling story lines.

Let's be honest, in the past it was WVU and everybody else. No other school consistently performed well in the big games from our conference outside of the Mountaineers. So you replace them with Boise, with a number of programs with tons of potential? I don't see the huge downgrade here, outside of losing some academic prestige and reputable schools like Pitt and Cuse, which were basketball and TV market losses more than anything.

If you are referring to my post, I think the Orange is probably sick of VT and would assume Clemson, fresh off an ACC championship and going to their first BCS (now Event) Bowl would be an excellent choice. Remember we have the advantage of hindsight.

Cheers,
Neil

Clemson has a disaster pick by the Orange Bowl last year...as Clemson sold only half of its 17,000 ticket allotment for the 2012 Orange Bowl Game...so I highly doubt anyone at the Orange Bowl wants Clemson to come back anytime soon.

Again, the scenario was about what might have happened last year had this 12-team Event been in place.

Apparently, reading and comprehension continues to elude you.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-23-2012 11:58 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-23-2012 07:58 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  If AQ's are eliminated then the Orange Bowl is no longer contractually obligated to take a 2011 Clemson per say. So why do people still think they get a guaranteed spot in this new system if the Orange has better teams they wish to exploit? Even though Va Tech got swept by the Tigers, they had a better ranking and still would have been as viable as Clemson, who were blown out by the Gamecocks in last year's finale.

None of the Bowls are contractually obligated to anybody. Until they rework the language that says, "so and so that meets this criteria is guaranteed a berth in this bowl." Everything is up in the air.

The Champions Bowl and Rose Bowl are the only ones with exclusive rights the their conference affiliates. That leaves eight spots to select the most compelling of match ups. Boise has always been an intrigue. I think SMU/Houston could also be an intrigue perhaps even for the Champions bowl if they can get to a TCU level of success. Some match ups involving Big East clubs can still offer compelling story lines.

Let's be honest, in the past it was WVU and everybody else. No other school consistently performed well in the big games from our conference outside of the Mountaineers. So you replace them with Boise, with a number of programs with tons of potential? I don't see the huge downgrade here, outside of losing some academic prestige and reputable schools like Pitt and Cuse, which were basketball and TV market losses more than anything.

If you are referring to my post, I think the Orange is probably sick of VT and would assume Clemson, fresh off an ACC championship and going to their first BCS (now Event) Bowl would be an excellent choice. Remember we have the advantage of hindsight.

The Champions Bowl is contractual to the SEC and Big 12 so they couldn't go for an SMU/Houston match-up if they wanted to, and based upon last year's regular season, I highly doubt they would want to considering SMU was only 7-5. Not being mean, just being realistic.

A 9-3 West Virginia would be a tough sell if the new Event Bowls were in place last year as well. A 12-1 Houston team might be attractive to a Cotton Bowl vs Baylor. But that just potentially bumps Boise out unless the Fiesta likes a Stanford vs Boise match-up over Wisconsin. I would think they would worry about attendance with that match-up though.

Cheers,
Neil

I think on a down year for second or third place Big 12/SEC clubs, the Champions would make an exception, unless of course the language clearly states that they are only allowed to take from those two conferences on non-semifinal years. But that could change down the line as the Rose Bowl was forced to make exceptions with Texas/TCU due to external pressures, and Delaney adjusted yet again by not only agreeing with the Final Four but yielding the "conference champs only" caveat as well. SMU/Texas or Houston/A&M would be decent if those schools got back to that level. Not happening next year but who knows 5-10 years from now. Same with UCF/USF. USF/Clemson, Miami/UCF, FSU/USF, could develop into big inter conference rivalries as those schools close the gap. Miami is going nowhere and the other two have been mediocre, as has USF, but the disparity that seemed insurmountable is no longer such.

So yeah, I do think the Big East/Big 12 and Big East/ACC will continue to birth new rivalries in some fashion in the Fiesta and Orange Bowls. Boise/SMU/Houston are every bit viable for the Fiesta with top ten finishes. UL, USF, UCF, RU could definitely make for decent matches against Va Tech, Clemson, UNC, FSU, Miami, pending high finishes of course, which we have rarely seen (exception being UL in 2006). It may take time, but it's not a crazy notion.

RuScarlets - I don't think you're seeing what's happening (or maybe you do and you're in denial).

The Champions Bowl is going to be OWNED by the SEC and Big 12. There will be no exceptions made, even if one of the teams is 7-5. There will never be a non-Big Ten/Pac-12 team in the Rose Bowl outside of the semifinal ever again.

The adding of a 6th bowl doesn't expand access - it merely preserves the same number of at-large spots as the status quo, only now those at-large spots can get taken by 3rd and maybe even 4th teams from the Big Ten and SEC that were capped before. Look at how it plays out, where there is going to be this lineup every year no matter what the rotation:

Semifinal: #1 vs. #4
Semifinal: #2 vs. #3
Big Ten vs. Pac-12
Big 12 vs. SEC
ACC vs. at-large
at-large vs. at-large

That's no different than now. These people picked Virginia Tech as an at-large for the Sugar Bowl last year in order to avoid Boise State, for pete's sake! That team was an ACC chanpionship game *loser* and ranked #19 in the AP poll when it was picked. When the caps on the number of schools picked from a conference are removed, they can now pick schools such as South Carolina and Michigan State, too, both of which ranked higher than VT in the last AP poll before the bowls. What makes you think that they're changing their behavior? Are people seriously this naive?