http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_...-the-bowls

1. The semifinal teams get four of the 12 slots in the new six-team rotation of “major bowls.” The commissioners are studying two plans to fill the other eight slots. One would simply follow whatever ranking will be used, from 5-12. Another would guarantee any conference champion that finishes at a certain ranking –- Top 16? Top 20? -- and use the rankings to fill the remaining slots. That’s good news for the Mountain West and Conference USA. That system would have produced five bowl berths in the last 12 years.

The best case would be that ND/BIG EAST/BYU/Army/C-USA/MWC get automatic berths "if" in the Top 15. If that happens most years out of the 12 yrs the BIG EAST Champ/ND would be in a "Top Six Bowl Game".

The ACC just signed a deal to send their champ to the orang bowl. No selection committee there.

OOOOOOOHHHHHHHH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO..... 8-5 ACC Champs are still gonna get in...

(06-29-2012 02:20 PM)BroncoFan78 Wrote:  The ACC just signed a deal to send their champ to the orang bowl. No selection committee there.

Wrong... the deal will be null and void if they don't finish in the top 16. Same with any other Conf. champ. Does the Rose Bowl want to be represented by an 9-4 Illinois that wins a fluke tie breaker and wins the CCG? Absolutely not. Ask the Big 10 if the Rose Bowl was thrilled by Illinois in the game against USC a few years back.

Yup...an 8-5 ACC Champ will once again get 70h dropped on them by the BIG EAST Rep...it is what it is.

This may end up better than I thougt it would. It's been hard to follow because there have been conflicinting info. We've heard more than once that there will be no guaranteed spots, but then we've heard that there will be certain guaranteed spots.

I think the only thing they know is that that there four playoff spots and the pr people wanted to get that out there. How bowl games are selected and who gets the money is still up for grabs?

(06-29-2012 02:23 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 02:20 PM)BroncoFan78 Wrote:  The ACC just signed a deal to send their champ to the orang bowl. No selection committee there.

Wrong... the deal will be null and void if they don't finish in the top 16. Same with any other Conf. champ. Does the Rose Bowl want to be represented by an 9-4 Illinois that wins a fluke tie breaker and wins the CCG? Absolutely not. Ask the Big 10 if the Rose Bowl was thrilled by Illinois in the game against USC a few years back.

Sounds like you're using old BCS rules. Here's what Joe Schade just put on twitter:

"@schadjoe: When ACC inks deal w Orange Bowl its champ is guaranteed "BCS" game spot even if the Orange is a semifinal and champ is rated below 12"

The best way you maximize your profits is to be as flexible and accommodating as possible. You don't lock yourself into this or that tie-in and play it safe. That not how you maximizing profits. The idea is to provide the most compelling game that can sell tickets and get viewers in front of the sets. The reality is these conferences have been mediocre to bad, pretty much all of them sans the SEC in recent years. The last thing Bowls want is to end up with marginal teams because of some clause that stipulates this or that.

So its AQ for everybody but the Big East;however, since the Big East killed off the other non-aq when their champion is good they get a spot too?

Screw the bowls I want competition that isn't tampered with.

(06-29-2012 02:35 PM)BroncoFan78 Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 02:23 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 02:20 PM)BroncoFan78 Wrote:  The ACC just signed a deal to send their champ to the orang bowl. No selection committee there.

Wrong... the deal will be null and void if they don't finish in the top 16. Same with any other Conf. champ. Does the Rose Bowl want to be represented by an 9-4 Illinois that wins a fluke tie breaker and wins the CCG? Absolutely not. Ask the Big 10 if the Rose Bowl was thrilled by Illinois in the game against USC a few years back.

Sounds like you're using old BCS rules. Here's what Joe Schade just put on twitter:

"@schadjoe: When ACC inks deal w Orange Bowl its champ is guaranteed "BCS" game spot even if the Orange is a semifinal and champ is rated below 12"

I don't think that will be on the table. Until we hear from the AD's that AQ's are back in, I don't see that happening.

(06-29-2012 02:39 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 02:35 PM)BroncoFan78 Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 02:23 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 02:20 PM)BroncoFan78 Wrote:  The ACC just signed a deal to send their champ to the orang bowl. No selection committee there.

Wrong... the deal will be null and void if they don't finish in the top 16. Same with any other Conf. champ. Does the Rose Bowl want to be represented by an 9-4 Illinois that wins a fluke tie breaker and wins the CCG? Absolutely not. Ask the Big 10 if the Rose Bowl was thrilled by Illinois in the game against USC a few years back.

Sounds like you're using old BCS rules. Here's what Joe Schade just put on twitter:

"@schadjoe: When ACC inks deal w Orange Bowl its champ is guaranteed "BCS" game spot even if the Orange is a semifinal and champ is rated below 12"

I don't think that will be on the table. Until we hear from the AD's that AQ's are back in, I don't see that happening.

I'd love to believe that, but from here it looks like the bowls are flipping the presidents the bird.

(06-29-2012 02:44 PM)BroncoFan78 Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 02:39 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 02:35 PM)BroncoFan78 Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 02:23 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 02:20 PM)BroncoFan78 Wrote:  The ACC just signed a deal to send their champ to the orang bowl. No selection committee there.

Wrong... the deal will be null and void if they don't finish in the top 16. Same with any other Conf. champ. Does the Rose Bowl want to be represented by an 9-4 Illinois that wins a fluke tie breaker and wins the CCG? Absolutely not. Ask the Big 10 if the Rose Bowl was thrilled by Illinois in the game against USC a few years back.

Sounds like you're using old BCS rules. Here's what Joe Schade just put on twitter:

"@schadjoe: When ACC inks deal w Orange Bowl its champ is guaranteed "BCS" game spot even if the Orange is a semifinal and champ is rated below 12"

I don't think that will be on the table. Until we hear from the AD's that AQ's are back in, I don't see that happening.

I'd love to believe that, but from here it looks like the bowls are flipping the presidents the bird.

The bowls better hope the presidents dont flip the bird right back. Open the championship game and 2 BCS consolation bowls to open bidding by cities. Let the highest seeded teams host the semis. Wow---seems life could go on without the bowls at all.

(06-29-2012 02:39 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 02:35 PM)BroncoFan78 Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 02:23 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 02:20 PM)BroncoFan78 Wrote:  The ACC just signed a deal to send their champ to the orang bowl. No selection committee there.

Wrong... the deal will be null and void if they don't finish in the top 16. Same with any other Conf. champ. Does the Rose Bowl want to be represented by an 9-4 Illinois that wins a fluke tie breaker and wins the CCG? Absolutely not. Ask the Big 10 if the Rose Bowl was thrilled by Illinois in the game against USC a few years back.

Sounds like you're using old BCS rules. Here's what Joe Schade just put on twitter:

"@schadjoe: When ACC inks deal w Orange Bowl its champ is guaranteed "BCS" game spot even if the Orange is a semifinal and champ is rated below 12"

I don't think that will be on the table. Until we hear from the AD's that AQ's are back in, I don't see that happening.

It's already done.

(06-29-2012 02:23 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Wrong... the deal will be null and void if they don't finish in the top 16. Same with any other Conf. champ. Does the Rose Bowl want to be represented by an 9-4 Illinois that wins a fluke tie breaker and wins the CCG? Absolutely not. Ask the Big 10 if the Rose Bowl was thrilled by Illinois in the game against USC a few years back.

That is exactly what the Rose Bowl wants, which is why the Rose Bowl selected Illinois over more deserving teams that season, such as making a deal with the Fiesta Bowl to get Oklahoma or else simply choosing Kansas.

The Fiesta Bowl would have then been able to select Arizona State, which had a better record than Illinois, to match against either Oklahoma or Kansas while West Virginia went to the Orange to reunite with Virginia Tech.

(06-29-2012 02:23 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 02:20 PM)BroncoFan78 Wrote:  The ACC just signed a deal to send their champ to the orang bowl. No selection committee there.

Wrong... the deal will be null and void if they don't finish in the top 16. Same with any other Conf. champ. Does the Rose Bowl want to be represented by an 9-4 Illinois that wins a fluke tie breaker and wins the CCG? Absolutely not. Ask the Big 10 if the Rose Bowl was thrilled by Illinois in the game against USC a few years back.

WTF are you talking about?! The Rose Bowl WANTED a Big Ten team in 2006. It literally had first choice of any at-large school that year under the BCS rules (it wasn't required to choose a Big Ten school since conference champ Ohio State was #1 in the BCS rankings), yet it still chose Illinois. With some the comments that you've had here and other threads, you clearly aren't undetstanding how the bowls operate (or have deluded yourself into thinking that it's something very different than what it has been for the last 50 years). You think flexibility is what they want above all, which isn't true. What they want is access to marquee brands and the power conferences have all of them, so they'd much rather have conference tie-ins to lock them up.

By the way, I have no clue why people don't believe what Schad is saying. Bill Hancock (the director of the BCS) told Stewart Mandel unequivocally that a conference tie-in is NOT subject to ranking, using the specific example that a #18-ranked Big Teb champ WILL be in the Rose Bowl without any doubt. Hancock also stated unequivocally that in the years that a "contract bowl" is a semifinal, those tie-ins WILL go to one of the top 6 bowls (e.g. the Big Ten champ will be in a top 6 bowl when the Rose Bowl is in a semifinal no matter how terribly it might be ranked). This is straight from the horse's mouth of the guy that was running these playoff meetings.

It's what many of us have been saying for months - the removal of AQ changes NOTHING for any of the conferences except for the Big East. The headline of "We're removing AQ status!" means nothing when you actually look at what this new system is going to look like.

The term "AQ" has been replaced with the term "contract bowl" and while there are some vagaries left to be determined, the setup seems to be as follows:

For the B1G/SEC/ACC/XII/PAC - conference champion gets a BCS bid regardless of ranking or if contract bowl is hosting a semifinal
For everyone else - highly-ranked teams get in

Two scenarios (well they're very similar, but a subtle difference) have yet to be answered IMHO:

A - ACC champ is ranked #1 and in playoff. ACC runner-up is ranked #20 or worse. Orange Bowl is not a semifinal site. Does the runner-up go to the Orange Bowl?
B - ACC champ is ranked #1 and in playoff. ACC runner-up is ranked #20 or worse. Orange Bowl is a semifinal site. Does the runner-up go to another BCS bowl?

I have read conflicting stories, but here's where I think they might go:

A - Yes (fulfills contract with Orange Bowl)
B - No (contract is for champion to play in a BCS game, which it will. With bowl site hosting, bowl cannot select replacement from ACC)

That is essentially AQ status.

The best scenario for the Big East (aside from gaining a contract bowl tie-in) and the others is to try to have the contract bowl tie-ins restricted to the conference champions and if those champions are in the playoff, then the slot goes to an at-large team ranked in the top 12.

The next best scenario for the Big East is to try to have the contract bowl tie-ins restricted to the conference champions and if those champions are in the playoff, then the slot goes to an at-large team ranked in top 15 or top 20. That way, it's very likely that the Rose can select a second B1G team if its champion is in the playoff, while avoiding the ire raised if the Rose were to take an unranked or poorly ranked team ahead of highly ranked non-contract-bowl-conference teams.

As it stands, there are 5 contract bid spots, minimum, and 7 at-large spots, maximum. The comments Jack Swarbrick made make me think the system will be set up such that if all four playoff participants are contract-bowl-conference champions, and those bowls are not hosting semifinals, then there would essentially be only 3 at-large spots, but if those bowls are each hosting semifinals, then there would be 7 at-large spots.