he was just on SiriusXM College Sports Nation on the Mark Packer show and had these interesting tidbits:

1. The ACC, B1G, Pac 12, SEC & Big XII have "contractual bids" aka-(pretty much 5 guaranteed spots in the Top 6 Bowls).

2. That is 5 of the 7 slots available in the new Playoff/Top Tier Bowl set up. The other slots will be determined by the new "Selection Committee" so not only will the selection committee will determine the Top 4 but who will fill the remaining Top Tier Bowl slots.

3. BCS Revenue Determination is still being worked out but I get the feeling that "everyone including the BIG EAST" will be satisfied.

So if say for intense the Chick Fil-A Bowl becomes a Top 6 Bowl they will not have a "guarantee" SEC/ACC matchup.

Most years as long as the BIG EAST has a 1 loss school they will be in one of the Top 6 bowls because Conference Champions will also weigh into this equation for those slots. The same can be said for a MWC, C-USA etc especially if they are unbeaten.

I'm wrapping my head around the idea that the powers that be might actually determine the at-large spots (which really amount to 3 open spots when you take away the "contractual bids") by merit as opposed to brand name, but if this will truly be the case, good for them. I'm surprised with how much the power conferences have been steamrolling everyone (although that obviously depends upon how unbiased one believes the selection committee will be).

The Notre Dame AD also stated something similar so it looks like not only will the committee choose the four playoff semiinals but the teams that would fill the bowls.
So you figure that the four playoff spots in most years would be SEC,Big12, PAC and Big Ten
So there will be at least three at large spots on most years, maybe more when the Rose,Champions or Orange host a semiinal.
It looks like a team would have to be in certain ranking o be eligible. Like top 12.
Also it looks like the committee will be releasing a top 20 in mid season like the BCS poll

Frank, I know you have said many times that the non-AQs will be getting either $$ or access, but not both. But if this is true, it seems as if they will be getting some of both, although it has to be earned. It looks to me as if the bowls that are signing up for the semifinal hosts (outside the Rose) are doing so knowing full well they may not be in charge or even have the ability to select who participates in their game, with the promise of more TV $$ and perhaps a more regional matchup that helps ticket sales. It really looks like the 12-team event is coming to fruition.

(06-28-2012 08:47 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  The Notre Dame AD also stated something similar so it looks like not only will the committee choose the four playoff semiinals but the teams that would fill the bowls.
So you figure that the four playoff spots in most years would be SEC,Big12, PAC and Big Ten
So there will be at least three at large spots on most years, maybe more when the Rose,Champions or Orange host a semiinal.
It looks like a team would have to be in certain ranking o be eligible. Like top 12.
Also it looks like the committee will be releasing a top 20 in mid season like the BCS poll

Cuban, I'm thinking more Top 16 not Top 12...need that padding.

(06-28-2012 08:49 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-28-2012 08:47 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  The Notre Dame AD also stated something similar so it looks like not only will the committee choose the four playoff semiinals but the teams that would fill the bowls.
So you figure that the four playoff spots in most years would be SEC,Big12, PAC and Big Ten
So there will be at least three at large spots on most years, maybe more when the Rose,Champions or Orange host a semiinal.
It looks like a team would have to be in certain ranking o be eligible. Like top 12.
Also it looks like the committee will be releasing a top 20 in mid season like the BCS poll

Cuban, I'm thinking more Top 16 not Top 12...need that padding.

I think you're right. Maybe even top 20. I don't think even the PAC would have wanted a 7-6 UCLA to go to the Rose. That was the biggest knock on the Big East - sending 3+ loss teams into the BCS.

(06-28-2012 08:52 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(06-28-2012 08:49 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-28-2012 08:47 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  The Notre Dame AD also stated something similar so it looks like not only will the committee choose the four playoff semiinals but the teams that would fill the bowls.
So you figure that the four playoff spots in most years would be SEC,Big12, PAC and Big Ten
So there will be at least three at large spots on most years, maybe more when the Rose,Champions or Orange host a semiinal.
It looks like a team would have to be in certain ranking o be eligible. Like top 12.
Also it looks like the committee will be releasing a top 20 in mid season like the BCS poll

Cuban, I'm thinking more Top 16 not Top 12...need that padding.

I think you're right. Maybe even top 20. I don't think even the PAC would have wanted a 7-6 UCLA to go to the Rose. That was the biggest knock on the Big East - sending 3+ loss teams into the BCS.

I think you are right. Since they will be releasing a top 20 regularly that could be the magic number. What we need to keep an eye on is if being a conference champion also carry more weight in who fills those bowl slots. I would think that this is where the big conferences will be throwing the bone,basically keeping the access to a smaller conference champion that goes undefeated or one loss.

(06-28-2012 08:49 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Frank, I know you have said many times that the non-AQs will be getting either $$ or access, but not both. But if this is true, it seems as if they will be getting some of both, although it has to be earned. It looks to me as if the bowls that are signing up for the semifinal hosts (outside the Rose) are doing so knowing full well they may not be in charge or even have the ability to select who participates in their game, with the promise of more TV $$ and perhaps a more regional matchup that helps ticket sales. It really looks like the 12-team event is coming to fruition.

It would depend. I'm going to assume that there are really only 3 at-large spots. (The power conferences might be in a charitable mood, but non-semifinalist Big Ten and Pac-12 champs aren't going homeless with a bid in one of these top 6 bowls in the years that the Rose Bowl is a semifinal. I don't care if they would be ranked in the top 12 more often than not. *Guaranteed* access is what separates the haves from the have-nots, and 99% is still not a guarantee. Not even the SEC and all of its hubris would agree to something without a guarantee for SEC #1.)

If they take just the next 3 highest ranked teams, I think the power conferences will generally be happy and the bowls would be OK with it. Those teams are likely going to be in the top 10, so even if a non-power team gets a bid, it's at least a very highly ranked one (which placates the bowls). However, there are also fewer non-power teams at that level. Non-power access would be better served by some type of rule similar to now, where the the best non-AQ champ in the top 12 gets an auto-bid. We'll see. I think the next 3 highest ranked teams scenario *seems* like where we'd end up in my general inclination to believe that the power conferences are willing to provide some access for non-power teams that meet a very high bar even though such access will largely provide a mechanism for even more power conference teams to be included in the system. That also seems like something the bowls would be happier with than the current non-AQ rule (which they *clearly* don't like). It's one thing in not being able to choose #13 Michigan when you are forced to take #6 Boise State - I think the bowls could live with that even if they don't like it. Having to take #12 Boise State when there's #13 Michigan available, though, probably wouldn't make the bowls happy at all.

(06-28-2012 08:52 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  I think you're right. Maybe even top 20. I don't think even the PAC would have wanted a 7-6 UCLA to go to the Rose.

It doesn't matter how crappy the Big Ten or Pac-12 champ might be in a given year. They will ALWAYS want to (and will agree to nothing less than guaranteed access for) their respective champs. That's how they maintain power. As we've seen, being a power conference has little to do with how many semifinalists that they can produce (or else the ACC wouldn't be getting the royal treatment) and everything to do with what happens to your best team that's NOT a semifinalist.

(06-28-2012 09:05 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-28-2012 08:52 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  I think you're right. Maybe even top 20. I don't think even the PAC would have wanted a 7-6 UCLA to go to the Rose.

It doesn't matter how crappy the Big Ten or Pac-12 champ might be in a given year. They will ALWAYS want to (and will agree to nothing less than guaranteed access for) their respective champs. That's how they maintain power. As we've seen, being a power conference has little to do with how many semifinalists that they can produce (or else the ACC wouldn't be getting the royal treatment) and everything to do with what happens to your best team that's NOT a semifinalist.

Yeah, it seems as if the at-large teams would be the ones subject to the top-12 floor.

http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2012/6/28/...lue-at-the

But then there's this little nugget:

Quote:Swarbrick also revealed that only teams in the top 12 of the committee's ranking will be eligible for at-large spots in the four major bowls that are part of the semifinal rotation but that aren't hosting semifinals in that particular year. Tie-ins for conference champions that don't make the playoff will determine how many at-large spots are open.

So in any given year, there could be as few as three at-large spots, or as many as seven. I read that to mean that if a B1G champion is chosen for the FFF, the Rose then has an at-large spot to fill. Now that could be for another B1G team in the top 12, but if the rules described above are truly the case (and I think Swarbrick would know), then if there's not another B1G team in the top 12, that spot would go to another team in the top 12.

Frank...trying to figure out how you come up with 3. Everyone assumes that 5 are getting in regards out of the 12 spots. The Champs of those 5 leagues are going to be in either the Semi/Top 6 Bowl no matter what.

That leaves 7 more spots available to either a high ranking Champion or a high ranking Power Conference Non Champ.

(06-28-2012 09:27 AM)Maize Wrote:  Frank...trying to figure out how you come up with 3. Everyone assumes that 5 are getting in regards out of the 12 spots. The Champs of those 5 leagues are going to be in either the Semi/Top 6 Bowl no matter what.

That leaves 7 more spots available to either a high ranking Champion or a high ranking Power Conference Non Champ.

5 contractual tie-ins and 4 semifinalists. That leaves 3 at-large bowl spots.

I'm a large believer that the contractual tie-ins are going to apply regardless of how many power conference teams make the semifinal. The Rose Bowl losing a Pac-12 champ to the semifinals is going to replace it the next best Pac-12 team no matter where it might be ranked. This was a major issue to get the Big Ten and Pac-12 on board (and the SEC and Big 12 are going to expect the same treatment for the Champions Bowl).

So, the powers that be might sell this in the media as 7 open spots (just like they sold the removal of AQ status as something material when it really did nothing other than change the Big East's position), but the reality is that there are just 3 open spots (just like today's BCS system).

(06-28-2012 08:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I'm wrapping my head around the idea that the powers that be might actually determine the at-large spots (which really amount to 3 open spots when you take away the "contractual bids") by merit as opposed to brand name, but if this will truly be the case, good for them. I'm surprised with how much the power conferences have been steamrolling everyone (although that obviously depends upon how unbiased one believes the selection committee will be).

There are a number of teams in the power conferences that would want merit based selection. If the “BC rule” is any indication the majority of teams in the ACC want selections to be merit based, and my guess is many if not most teams in the PAC and B12 would as well. The merit based selections are about protecting Boston College and Kansas State not Boise State.

Yes you are correct on those years that the Champion or Rose Bowl do not host a semifinal but on the years they do that could change.
Example let's say the Rose and Sugar are the sems in one year.
That leaves
Champion hosting Big 12 vs SEC champ or next best
Orange hosting ACC champ vs at large
Fiesta hosting two at large
Chick Fill hosting two at large.
Now obviously if the Big Ten or PAC champ is not in playoff they willbe chosen by other bowls. But let's say that they both qualify for playoffs and that no other Big Ten or PAC team is in top 16 then that would leave 5 at large.
Now I'm no fool the reality is that there will be other SEC or Big12 teams probably filling those spots. But I think a Big East team with at least a 10-2 record will get one of those slots.
We have gone from 10 possible slots today to 12

(06-28-2012 10:19 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-28-2012 09:27 AM)Maize Wrote:  Frank...trying to figure out how you come up with 3. Everyone assumes that 5 are getting in regards out of the 12 spots. The Champs of those 5 leagues are going to be in either the Semi/Top 6 Bowl no matter what.

That leaves 7 more spots available to either a high ranking Champion or a high ranking Power Conference Non Champ.

5 contractual tie-ins and 4 semifinalists. That leaves 3 at-large bowl spots.

I'm a large believer that the contractual tie-ins are going to apply regardless of how many power conference teams make the semifinal. The Rose Bowl losing a Pac-12 champ to the semifinals is going to replace it the next best Pac-12 team no matter where it might be ranked. This was a major issue to get the Big Ten and Pac-12 on board (and the SEC and Big 12 are going to expect the same treatment for the Champions Bowl).

So, the powers that be might sell this in the media as 7 open spots (just like they sold the removal of AQ status as something material when it really did nothing other than change the Big East's position), but the reality is that there are just 3 open spots (just like today's BCS system).

Actually Frank that not what the WKU President said...it pretty much going to be up to the selection committee picking those last 7 spots.

Now most years you are going to have 2 Pac 12/B1G schools ranked in the Top 12-16 so it should matter. The same with the Champions Bowl with the SEC/Big XII.

Years that the Rose Bowl & say the Sugar Bowl are host and neither the B1G or Pac 12 qualify for the Playoffs and you have 2 SEC/2 Big XII schools:

Rose Bowl: Big XII #1 vs SEC #4
Sugar Bowl: SEC #2 vs. Big XII #3

Cotton Bowl: Big XII #3 vs SEC #3
Orange Bowl: ACC #1 vs @ Large
Fiesta Bowl: Pac 12 vs B1G
Chick Fil-A Bowl: @ Large vs. @ Large

I think people are making this much more complicated than it will likely end up being. Forget about the names "Rose Bowl" or "Champions Bowl" for a moment. These are the games that are likely going to be played no matter what:

Semifinal X: #1 vs. #4
Semifinal Y: #2 vs. #3
Bowl A: Big Ten vs. Pac-12
Bowl B: SEC vs. Big 12
Bowl C: ACC vs. at-large
Bowl D: at-large vs. at-large

When the Rose Bowl is a semifinal, then Bowl A will be the Fiesta Bowl (or whoever is willing to pay for it). When the Champions Bowl is a semifinal, then Bowl B will be the Cotton or Sugar. When the Orange Bowl is a semifinal, then Bowl C will be the Chick-Fil-A or Outback (or whoever is bowl #6). Bowl D will rotate among whoever isn't the "regular" Champions Bowl site (Cotton or Sugar) and bowl #6.

(06-28-2012 10:41 AM)Maize Wrote:  Actually Frank that not what the WKU President said...it pretty much going to be up to the selection committee picking those last 7 spots.

Now most years you are going to have 2 Pac 12/B1G schools ranked in the Top 12-16 so it should matter.

Bob Bowlsby certainly had a different interpretation (and I'm sure that will also be the case for Delany, Scott, Slive and Swofford), so we'll see. I have a hard time believing that the Big Ten and Pac-12 claim to be satisfied with the Rose Bowl situation under an arrangement where they might have to give it up in non-semifinal years (it was acknowledged that they would give it up in semifinal years).

(06-28-2012 10:44 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-28-2012 10:41 AM)Maize Wrote:  Actually Frank that not what the WKU President said...it pretty much going to be up to the selection committee picking those last 7 spots.

Now most years you are going to have 2 Pac 12/B1G schools ranked in the Top 12-16 so it should matter.

Bob Bowlsby certainly had a different interpretation (and I'm sure that will also be the case for Delany, Scott, Slive and Swofford), so we'll see. I have a hard time believing that the Big Ten and Pac-12 claim to be satisfied with the Rose Bowl situation under an arrangement where they might have to give it up in non-semifinal years (it was acknowledged that they would give it up in semifinal years).

That may be the case but the Presidents are the one that make this decision. He was under the impression that was the case, it is the selection committee not tie-in. Ransdell is on the Presidential Oversight Committee and I am using his words.

The Conference will have a certain amount of tie-ins to the Rose, Orange and Champions Bowl but everything else was selection committee for 7 of those spots.

Plus if it is a guaranteed $500 to $600 Million per year the two commish that really matter-(Slive/Delany) can get over it real quick.

(06-28-2012 10:41 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think people are making this much more complicated than it will likely end up being. Forget about the names "Rose Bowl" or "Champions Bowl" for a moment. These are the games that are likely going to be played no matter what:

Semifinal X: #1 vs. #4
Semifinal Y: #2 vs. #3
Bowl A: Big Ten vs. Pac-12
Bowl B: SEC vs. Big 12
Bowl C: ACC vs. at-large
Bowl D: at-large vs. at-large

When the Rose Bowl is a semifinal, then Bowl A will be the Fiesta Bowl (or whoever is willing to pay for it). When the Champions Bowl is a semifinal, then Bowl B will be the Cotton or Sugar. When the Orange Bowl is a semifinal, then Bowl C will be the Chick-Fil-A or Outback (or whoever is bowl #6). Bowl D will rotate among whoever isn't the "regular" Champions Bowl site (Cotton or Sugar) and bowl #6.

Yep that looks accurate

(06-28-2012 10:41 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think people are making this much more complicated than it will likely end up being. Forget about the names "Rose Bowl" or "Champions Bowl" for a moment. These are the games that are likely going to be played no matter what:

Semifinal X: #1 vs. #4
Semifinal Y: #2 vs. #3
Bowl A: Big Ten vs. Pac-12
Bowl B: SEC vs. Big 12
Bowl C: ACC vs. at-large
Bowl D: at-large vs. at-large

When the Rose Bowl is a semifinal, then Bowl A will be the Fiesta Bowl (or whoever is willing to pay for it). When the Champions Bowl is a semifinal, then Bowl B will be the Cotton or Sugar. When the Orange Bowl is a semifinal, then Bowl C will be the Chick-Fil-A or Outback (or whoever is bowl #6). Bowl D will rotate among whoever isn't the "regular" Champions Bowl site (Cotton or Sugar) and bowl #6.

Years that you have the "BIG FOUR" are the playoff and let say the Rose Bowl/Sugar Bowl are the Host:

Rose Bowl: #1 Pac 12 vs. #4 B1G
Sugar Bowl: #2 SEC vs. #3 Big XII

Cotton Bowl: #2 SEC vs. #2 Big XII
Fiesta Bowl: #2 Pac 12 vs. #2 B1G
Orange Bowl: #1 ACC vs @ Large
Chick Fil-A Bowl: @ Large vs. @ Large

Ok, I now see what you are saying. But pretty confident most years the BIG EAST Champ will either be in one of those bowls. They would have qualified from 2005 through 2009...only 2010 & 2011 would have not made it.