(06-25-2012 07:31 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  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.

I do think those spots will often go to highly 3rd place teams from the SEC, Big 10, PAC-12 and Big 12 that have been passed over in the past, but I still top 5-8 ranked 0-1 loss teams outside of those conferences are likely to get looks from the bowls with at larges, particularly if there is a regional connection. Since they've expanded from 4 locales to 6, that could be good news for teams like Houston and SMU (Dallas), or UCF and USF (Miami), for example. I could see those bowls being very interested in a 12-1 #6 ranked BE champ from those schools. Obviously depends on the scenario of who is available and what selection order there is.

(06-25-2012 08:35 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 07:31 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  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.

I do think those spots will often go to highly 3rd place teams from the SEC, Big 10, PAC-12 and Big 12 that have been passed over in the past, but I still top 5-8 ranked 0-1 loss teams outside of those conferences are likely to get looks from the bowls with at larges, particularly if there is a regional connection. Since they've expanded from 4 locales to 6, that could be good news for teams like Houston and SMU (Dallas), or UCF and USF (Miami), for example. I could see those bowls being very interested in a 12-1 #6 ranked BE champ from those schools. Obviously depends on the scenario of who is available and what selection order there is.

Well, yes, I'll agree with what you're saying to a certain degree. I won't say that those schools will *never* get a look from those bowl committees (you can't ever say "never" in anything). They very well might in a certain year given the right circumstances. However, you're also not likely going to see a rule ever forcing those bowls to take those schools like they do today, which is a massive deal when also coupled with the fact that the Big East is almost certainly not going to have a contractual tie-in with any of these bowls. When a #6 Boise State team gets passed over for a crappy ACC championship game loser, that's prima facie evidence of how the bowls think. In a decade in a half of BCS bowl choices, they have been pretty consistent in how they choose teams, which is to say that they consistently avoid the little guy at all costs. The only example of a discretionary non-power choice by the BCS bowls was #6 Boise State getting an at-large bid in 2009. However, we also have to look at the context of that choice. The only other BCS bowl eligible choices for the Fiesta that year were #11 Virginia Tech and #14 BYU. #12 LSU and #13 Penn State were eligible but couldn't be taken because of the 2-team cap on schools from any one conference, which is a rule that will be eliminated in the new system. Are we having faith that both LSU and Penn State would have been passed over in favor of Boise that year under the new system? It's a hypothetical that we'll never know the answer to, but I have my strong inclination of how the bowls would have acted considering what they chose to do the other 14 years in the history of the BCS.

Plus, remember who is actually going to be choosing these bowls to be part of this 6-bowl rotation: the 5 power conferences and Notre Dame. You don't get to be a BCS bowl (or whatever we're going to call them in the future) without the blessing of those 5 conferences and ND. The top bowls know where their bread is buttered (and why they have such large bank accounts to pay for fancy dinners and strippers for power conference executives). Do you think those bowls want to irk Jim Delany and Mike Slive by passing over Big Ten and SEC teams for non-power teams? If you do, then you have a lot more faith in the good, pure, noble and egalitarian intentions of bowl committees than I do.

Obviously circumstances will determine everything, but generally speaking, with 12 spots, I suspect a #5 Big East Champ will probably be almost always in (keep in mind this will be the highest team in any non-semi-final bowl). I think a #10 Big East Champ will almost never be in, except for maybe Boise State (I know they didn't get in this year, but their name does carry value and there are set-ups where I could see a bowl choosing them at #10). In between it's a sliding scale with #6 still being likely and #9 being pretty unlikely, but maybe under the right circumstances.

(06-25-2012 09:06 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 08:35 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 07:31 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  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.

I do think those spots will often go to highly 3rd place teams from the SEC, Big 10, PAC-12 and Big 12 that have been passed over in the past, but I still top 5-8 ranked 0-1 loss teams outside of those conferences are likely to get looks from the bowls with at larges, particularly if there is a regional connection. Since they've expanded from 4 locales to 6, that could be good news for teams like Houston and SMU (Dallas), or UCF and USF (Miami), for example. I could see those bowls being very interested in a 12-1 #6 ranked BE champ from those schools. Obviously depends on the scenario of who is available and what selection order there is.

Well, yes, I'll agree with what you're saying to a certain degree. I won't say that those schools will *never* get a look from those bowl committees (you can't ever say "never" in anything). They very well might in a certain year given the right circumstances. However, you're also not likely going to see a rule ever forcing those bowls to take those schools like they do today, which is a massive deal when also coupled with the fact that the Big East is almost certainly not going to have a contractual tie-in with any of these bowls. When a #6 Boise State team gets passed over for a crappy ACC championship game loser, that's prima facie evidence of how the bowls think. In a decade in a half of BCS bowl choices, they have been pretty consistent in how they choose teams, which is to say that they consistently avoid the little guy at all costs. The only example of a discretionary non-power choice by the BCS bowls was #6 Boise State getting an at-large bid in 2009. However, we also have to look at the context of that choice. The only other BCS bowl eligible choices for the Fiesta that year were #11 Virginia Tech and #14 BYU. #12 LSU and #13 Penn State were eligible but couldn't be taken because of the 2-team cap on schools from any one conference, which is a rule that will be eliminated in the new system. Are we having faith that both LSU and Penn State would have been passed over in favor of Boise that year under the new system? It's a hypothetical that we'll never know the answer to, but I have my strong inclination of how the bowls would have acted considering what they chose to do the other 14 years in the history of the BCS.

Plus, remember who is actually going to be choosing these bowls to be part of this 6-bowl rotation: the 5 power conferences and Notre Dame. You don't get to be a BCS bowl (or whatever we're going to call them in the future) without the blessing of those 5 conferences and ND. The top bowls know where their bread is buttered (and why they have such large bank accounts to pay for fancy dinners and strippers for power conference executives). Do you think those bowls want to irk Jim Delany and Mike Slive by passing over Big Ten and SEC teams for non-power teams? If you do, then you have a lot more faith in the good, pure, noble and egalitarian intentions of bowl committees than I do.

PRetty much agree, but a few points on Boise 2009 versus Boise 2011.

1. Boise was not undefeated last year, versus undefeated in 2009. I think that plays a role in attractiveness to bowls.
2. The bowl with an opening was a regional Fiesta in 2009 and a far away Sugar in 2011.
3. Minor point- Boise was #7 in the rankings in 2011, #6 in 2009.

Basically in the head to head matchup of VT and Boise, one year Boise was selected and one year VT was selected. There are variables in play in those respective years that make each of those make sense.

I don't think there will be absolutes, where a 3rd place "big 5" team will always be more attractive. Depends on location, reputation and how many losses and how highly ranked the teams are. Each year will be different.

One more point. This new system will mean that before the playoff is announced, the top 6 or so are going to thoroughly "vetted" by the press as to who is most deserving of making the playoff. That vetting process will raise the value of the two or so teams who don't make the playoff. I would be surprised if a team, regardless of conference, will go from being talked about for the playoff to not making one of the four other bowls.

The bowls will still be about who can bring the most fans. A highly ranked Big East champ will be attractive to bowls.
If the Orange Bowl remains in that group I can guarantee you that if the Big East champ is UCF or USF they would be interested.
Louisville and Boise travel well and ave a name. Cincy proved that they travel well. The others would have to prove it but as I said it depends on team and bowl. Certaintly it depends on the record and the location of the school and bowl game. I doubt the Zfiesta would invite any Big East champ from the east other than maybe Louisville

(06-25-2012 09:35 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  The bowls will still be about who can bring the most fans. A highly ranked Big East champ will be attractive to bowls.
If the Orange Bowl remains in that group I can guarantee you that if the Big East champ is UCF or USF they would be interested.
Louisville and Boise travel well and ave a name. Cincy proved that they travel well. The others would have to prove it but as I said it depends on team and bowl. Certaintly it depends on the record and the location of the school and bowl game. I doubt the Zfiesta would invite any Big East champ from the east other than maybe Louisville

I also tend to think a larger Big East, with the combined fan bases of 14 teans rather than just 8 (almost all in large markets), will make a much bigger splash in the TV rankings than they have in the past. If I am right, the Big East champion could become a much more popular choice for some of the major bowls.

(06-25-2012 07:31 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  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?

And why was TCU is the Rose Bowl last year? The cycle is going to continue. Every time the big conferences try to pull away, there is uproar from the mid-majors and concessions are made every single time. The fact that TCU was given access says it all. If lower level schools are not given access now, they will be later.

It may even happen immediately to keep the little guys quite. Top 12 CC is automatically in one of the six Bowls. You think that is expecting too much? Spoken like a true B1G/SEC/Big 12 guy, even if you aren't, that's the impression I get. I'll admit I look at it glass half full, but you have taken the complete opposite approach. You don't see any middle ground. Note that EVERY conference, including the WAC, is getting representation on Tuesday. Think Idaho is expecting to crack the top four?

And yeah, I do expect Va Tech and Michigan to get preference. They are national brands. Can't say that for the good majority of programs out there though.

(06-25-2012 11:56 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  And why was TCU is the Rose Bowl last year? The cycle is going to continue. Every time the big conferences try to pull away, there is uproar from the mid-majors and concessions are made every single time. The fact that TCU was given access says it all. If lower level schools are not given access now, they will be later.

That is the first rule that's going away. The rule regarding the Rose was put into place because the Sugar, Fiesta and Orange moaned about always having to take a non-AQ team while the Rose was protected. Ironically, the new Champions Bowl that was created (which mandates a Big 12 vs. SEC matchup) actually provides the Rose with complete leverage to say that it's going to be a pure Big Ten/Pac-12 affair except when it's a semifinal. The 4-team playoff itself was a *massive* give in the eyes of the Big Ten and Pac-12 and that's what they will position as "more access".

Quote:It may even happen immediately to keep the little guys quite. Top 12 CC is automatically in one of the six Bowls. You think that is expecting too much? Spoken like a true B1G/SEC/Big 12 guy, even if you aren't, that's the impression I get. I'll admit I look at it glass half full, but you have taken the complete opposite approach. You don't see any middle ground. Note that EVERY conference, including the WAC, is getting representation on Tuesday. Think Idaho is expecting to crack the top four?

And yeah, I do expect Va Tech and Michigan to get preference. They are national brands. Can't say that for the good majority of programs out there though.

It's not that I don't see a middle ground. What I see is that the bowls outside of the semifinals are going to be left up to their own devices to choose whoever they want. This is what I keep seeing being reported. I'm not making that up. That was the exchange for having a 4-team playoff in the eyes of the powers that be. *Could* a #6 Boise State team get picked over a #10 team from the Big Ten or SEC? Yes, they could in theory. I'm just going by past practice which shows that the bowls (with the only exception being 2009 Boise State) haven't willingly chosen those teams and now there very likely won't be any rule to force those bowls to choose them at all.

If I'm wrong about there not being some type of guaranteed bowl bid for a top 12 non-power school, then I'll gladly issue a mea culpa here. However, that's simply not what has been reported out there. Everything up to this point says "Semifinals = Merit" and "Other Bowls = Whoever they want for brand name/tickets/TV ratings". It's certainly possible that a #6 Big East champ will get a top tier bowl bid, but what's different is that it won't be guaranteed (and those guarantees are what separate the haves from the have-nots).

Regardless, there is still an equal number of at-larges with the extra Bowls minus two teams from the pool (with the top 4 in the BCS title mix). We basically had a mid major (not including the old AQ's) every year since they put that stipulation with the Utes and Boise's and TCU's of the world posting top ten finishes.

So you take out an 8-4 UConn/Pitt getting an autospot, perhaps even 10-3 or 9-4 ACC Champs, that is at least one more spot available right there, plus three At-Large spots on most years (between the Sugar/Fiesta/Orange/Chick-Fil-A (sans whatever Bowl takes the 6th spot in the rotation). So sheer probability dicates otherwise.

You seem to think the SEC is setting 3 teams automatically every year. With a strong third team like Arkansas then yes. With a team that gets blown out the final weekend and posts a 9-3 record, not gonna get selected even with a top 15 finish. Now if OU/Texas/WVU all go 11-1 or LSU/Fla/Bama or Michi/Michi St./Ohio St finish high and 1,2,3, yes those conferences may take 3 slots (including the top four). But just based on the regionality, I don't see conferences sending four teams on any year. There are not enough "brands" that are good enough that will all be strong in a given year.

(06-25-2012 03:47 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Regardless, there is still an equal number of at-larges with the extra Bowls minus two teams from the pool (with the top 4 in the BCS title mix). We basically had a mid major (not including the old AQ's) every year since they put that stipulation with the Utes and Boise's and TCU's of the world posting top ten finishes.

So you take out an 8-4 UConn/Pitt getting an autospot, perhaps even 10-3 or 9-4 ACC Champs, that is at least one more spot available right there, plus three At-Large spots on most years (between the Sugar/Fiesta/Orange/Chick-Fil-A (sans whatever Bowl takes the 6th spot in the rotation). So sheer probability dicates otherwise.

You seem to think the SEC is setting 3 teams automatically every year. With a strong third team like Arkansas then yes. With a team that gets blown out the final weekend and posts a 9-3 record, not gonna get selected even with a top 15 finish. Now if OU/Texas/WVU all go 11-1 or LSU/Fla/Bama or Michi/Michi St./Ohio St finish high and 1,2,3, yes those conferences may take 3 slots (including the top four). But just based on the regionality, I don't see conferences sending four teams on any year. There are not enough "brands" that are good enough that will all be strong in a given year.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't see it playing out the way that you're saying because that's simply not how the top bowls have historically acted (and they will likely have even fewer restrictions going forward), but of course I could end up being wrong (and we won't know the answer until 3 years from now). The only thing that we should reasonably assume is that the ACC is going to have a contractual tie-in, so their champ is going to be included in the new system (whether it deserves it or not).

My main point: don't trust the bowls to do anything other than help out the power conferences. If you want to be hopeful that they'll send invites to non-power schools in the future, then that's fine, but I certainly wouldn't trust them. The issue is that a 4-loss ACC champ is going to have a guarantee that a 1-loss Boise State team is no longer going to have even compared to today's system, and that's by design. It seems to me that if the top bowls still really wanted the top non-power schools, they wouldn't have pushed for the elimination of the non-AQ rule and the Big East's AQ status (or at least wouldn't have been bothered by the continued existence of those rules going forward). The top non-AQ school has been better on-the-field than the ACC champ for the past several years, but look at who is still getting the guaranteed auto-bid.