(09-15-2014 09:25 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 03:47 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 03:44 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 03:27 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  The OB was a complete disaster for the ACC.

1. The ACC should have way more room to let ND jump a B1G/SEC team. As it stands right now, I don't think ND will play in the game this 12 year cycle. They have to be the right mix of good, but not too good.

2. Splitting the money 50-50 is crazy.

3. Picking after the at-large picks is extremely disappointing.

The ACC was at a pretty big low when this came around. If it's 2 years later, things are totally different.

ONe correction- the Orange picks BEFORE the at large picks. So they could get a #5 SEC Runner up for instance.

Yes, the Commitee must fufill the contract bowls requirements first.

Assume both the SEC #1 and B1G #1 make the FF. It's my understanding that the SEC #1 plays in the Sugar Bowl and the B1G #1 plays in an at-large spot in the Peach/Cotton/Fiesta (Assuming the Rose is hosting). Then the OB can select the higher of the B1G #2, the SEC #2, and Notre Dame, provided that the SEC/B1G hasn't 't already gone 3x and that ND hasn't already gone 2x. Then that team is excluded.

That's BS. The OB *should* get the first pick out of the teams that would be playing in the Rose/Sugar (regardless of conference affiliation) when the Rose/Sugar hosts and the OB *should* pay the visitor slightly more than the Access Bowls and the ACC should pocket the rest. Otherwise, the ACC should be given a wide latitude to pick ND over higher-ranked B1G/SEC teams so long as ND is ranked within x spaces (or something like that).

Failure to secure either of the above described agreements is a complete failure on Swofford. The TV contract filled with nepotism is pretty bad, but the OB agreement is inexcusable. I don't care when it was negotiated. Things were never *that* bleak. The OB agreement is absolute garbage.

If I think I understand your post- there's a few things wrong with it. 1st off- the Rose and Sugar are together in years. So if B10 or SEC champ don't make the playoff- they will go to access bowl.

Also, the Orange gets the highest ranked then of SEC 2/B10 2/ or ND- but in the 8 times, they have to have SEC and Big Ten at least 3 times. There is no min for ND- but a max of 2.

And yes, the Orange agreement from the day it was announced has always been that bleak for the ACC. It was a terrible agreement and everyone knew it pretty much right away.

(09-15-2014 09:34 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 09:08 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  "against the highest ranked available school from either the Big Ten Conference,Southeastern Conference (SEC) or Notre Dame"

One way to read the highlighted section is that it's the highest ranked team from the pool of 29 teams in the B10/SEC/ND. A second way to read it is the committee can place the highest ranked team out of the three discrete conferences/ND in the Orange Bowl.

I'm not sure that's ambiguous--I don't see that they've left themselves another option, so it would be embarrassing if they pulled secret language out of their briefcases and bypassed #8 Minnesota for #10 Missouri or whatever.

What _is_ ambiguous, I think, is the term "highest ranked available school". Does the Orange Bowl get to pick before the Access Bowls, or after?

Everything I have seen is before the access bowls.

(09-15-2014 09:34 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 09:34 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 09:08 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  "against the highest ranked available school from either the Big Ten Conference,Southeastern Conference (SEC) or Notre Dame"

One way to read the highlighted section is that it's the highest ranked team from the pool of 29 teams in the B10/SEC/ND. A second way to read it is the committee can place the highest ranked team out of the three discrete conferences/ND in the Orange Bowl.

I'm not sure that's ambiguous--I don't see that they've left themselves another option, so it would be embarrassing if they pulled secret language out of their briefcases and bypassed #8 Minnesota for #10 Missouri or whatever.

What _is_ ambiguous, I think, is the term "highest ranked available school". Does the Orange Bowl get to pick before the Access Bowls, or after?

Everything I have seen is before the access bowls.

But in the immediately previous post, the Big Ten champion is in the Access Bowl rather than the Orange Bowl. Now that I think about it, that's a separate agreement from the OB contracts. So the Orange Bowl could take a #5 SEC runner-up, but not a #7 Big Ten champion.

(09-15-2014 09:34 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 09:25 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 03:47 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 03:44 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 03:27 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  The OB was a complete disaster for the ACC.

1. The ACC should have way more room to let ND jump a B1G/SEC team. As it stands right now, I don't think ND will play in the game this 12 year cycle. They have to be the right mix of good, but not too good.

2. Splitting the money 50-50 is crazy.

3. Picking after the at-large picks is extremely disappointing.

The ACC was at a pretty big low when this came around. If it's 2 years later, things are totally different.

ONe correction- the Orange picks BEFORE the at large picks. So they could get a #5 SEC Runner up for instance.

Yes, the Commitee must fufill the contract bowls requirements first.

Assume both the SEC #1 and B1G #1 make the FF. It's my understanding that the SEC #1 plays in the Sugar Bowl and the B1G #1 plays in an at-large spot in the Peach/Cotton/Fiesta (Assuming the Rose is hosting). Then the OB can select the higher of the B1G #2, the SEC #2, and Notre Dame, provided that the SEC/B1G hasn't 't already gone 3x and that ND hasn't already gone 2x. Then that team is excluded.

That's BS. The OB *should* get the first pick out of the teams that would be playing in the Rose/Sugar (regardless of conference affiliation) when the Rose/Sugar hosts and the OB *should* pay the visitor slightly more than the Access Bowls and the ACC should pocket the rest. Otherwise, the ACC should be given a wide latitude to pick ND over higher-ranked B1G/SEC teams so long as ND is ranked within x spaces (or something like that).

Failure to secure either of the above described agreements is a complete failure on Swofford. The TV contract filled with nepotism is pretty bad, but the OB agreement is inexcusable. I don't care when it was negotiated. Things were never *that* bleak. The OB agreement is absolute garbage.

If I think I understand your post- there's a few things wrong with it. 1st off- the Rose and Sugar are together in years. So if B10 or SEC champ don't make the playoff- they will go to access bowl.

Also, the Orange gets the highest ranked then of SEC 2/B10 2/ or ND- but in the 8 times, they have to have SEC and Big Ten at least 3 times. There is no min for ND- but a max of 2.

And yes, the Orange agreement from the day it was announced has always been that bleak for the ACC. It was a terrible agreement and everyone knew it pretty much right away.

I think you misunderstand my post.

I'm not sure what you mean by the Rose and the Sugar are together in years. The Rose and Sugar can't be together when the OB isn't hosting (and when the OB is hosting, it doesn't feature non-FF games). When the OB isn't hosting, one of the Rose or the Sugar has to host. When that bowl (Rose or the Sugar) hosts, the other does not. The hosting bowl then sends it's B1G/SEC team to an access bowl, and the OB can choose between the 2nd pick of the rest of the SEC/B1G (after the non-hosting Rose/Sugar Bowl picks and the Access Bowl picks). I am 99.9999999% certain of that. I'm not sure why people keep claiming that the OB picks before the Access Bowls. The OB can't get the #1 SEC/B1G team in any circumstance, whereas the Access Bowls can. They pick then we pick, then they pick again.

Also, I meant the ACC wasn't that bleak. However, I agree. I remember being PO'd when the details of the agreement were announced. It was a massively blown opportunity, and everyone knew it at the time.

(09-15-2014 09:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 09:34 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 09:34 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 09:08 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  "against the highest ranked available school from either the Big Ten Conference,Southeastern Conference (SEC) or Notre Dame"

One way to read the highlighted section is that it's the highest ranked team from the pool of 29 teams in the B10/SEC/ND. A second way to read it is the committee can place the highest ranked team out of the three discrete conferences/ND in the Orange Bowl.

I'm not sure that's ambiguous--I don't see that they've left themselves another option, so it would be embarrassing if they pulled secret language out of their briefcases and bypassed #8 Minnesota for #10 Missouri or whatever.

What _is_ ambiguous, I think, is the term "highest ranked available school". Does the Orange Bowl get to pick before the Access Bowls, or after?

Everything I have seen is before the access bowls.

But in the immediately previous post, the Big Ten champion is in the Access Bowl rather than the Orange Bowl. Now that I think about it, that's a separate agreement from the OB contracts. So the Orange Bowl could take a #5 SEC runner-up, but not a #7 Big Ten champion.

The Orange Bowl's contract with the SEC and B1G and ND trumps the Access Bowl at-large allocations, so its slots are filled first. Similarly, the Rose and Sugar Bowl contracts with the SEC and B1G trump their contracts with the Orange Bowl.

That said, the Orange does not get to "take" anyone, if that is meant to mean they actually get to pick and choose. They don't. The contracts determine for the Orange who its teams are, it has no discretion.

With one exception: If the B1G/SEC/ND opponent dictated by the contract would result in a rematch with the ACC team, the Orange can pass over that opponent team in favor of the next-highest ranked available team, if it doesn't want a rematch.

(09-15-2014 10:24 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I think you misunderstand my post.

I'm not sure what you mean by the Rose and the Sugar are together in years. The Rose and Sugar can't be together when the OB isn't hosting (and when the OB is hosting, it doesn't feature non-FF games). When the OB isn't hosting, one of the Rose or the Sugar has to host. When that bowl (Rose or the Sugar) hosts, the other does not.

No, this year the Rose and Sugar host semifinals. Next year the Orange and Cotton, and then the PEach and Fiesta.

(09-15-2014 10:24 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 09:34 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 09:25 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 03:47 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 03:44 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The ACC was at a pretty big low when this came around. If it's 2 years later, things are totally different.

ONe correction- the Orange picks BEFORE the at large picks. So they could get a #5 SEC Runner up for instance.

Yes, the Commitee must fufill the contract bowls requirements first.

Assume both the SEC #1 and B1G #1 make the FF. It's my understanding that the SEC #1 plays in the Sugar Bowl and the B1G #1 plays in an at-large spot in the Peach/Cotton/Fiesta (Assuming the Rose is hosting). Then the OB can select the higher of the B1G #2, the SEC #2, and Notre Dame, provided that the SEC/B1G hasn't 't already gone 3x and that ND hasn't already gone 2x. Then that team is excluded.

That's BS. The OB *should* get the first pick out of the teams that would be playing in the Rose/Sugar (regardless of conference affiliation) when the Rose/Sugar hosts and the OB *should* pay the visitor slightly more than the Access Bowls and the ACC should pocket the rest. Otherwise, the ACC should be given a wide latitude to pick ND over higher-ranked B1G/SEC teams so long as ND is ranked within x spaces (or something like that).

Failure to secure either of the above described agreements is a complete failure on Swofford. The TV contract filled with nepotism is pretty bad, but the OB agreement is inexcusable. I don't care when it was negotiated. Things were never *that* bleak. The OB agreement is absolute garbage.

If I think I understand your post- there's a few things wrong with it. 1st off- the Rose and Sugar are together in years. So if B10 or SEC champ don't make the playoff- they will go to access bowl.

Also, the Orange gets the highest ranked then of SEC 2/B10 2/ or ND- but in the 8 times, they have to have SEC and Big Ten at least 3 times. There is no min for ND- but a max of 2.

And yes, the Orange agreement from the day it was announced has always been that bleak for the ACC. It was a terrible agreement and everyone knew it pretty much right away.

I think you misunderstand my post.

I'm not sure what you mean by the Rose and the Sugar are together in years. The Rose and Sugar can't be together when the OB isn't hosting (and when the OB is hosting, it doesn't feature non-FF games). When the OB isn't hosting, one of the Rose or the Sugar has to host. When that bowl (Rose or the Sugar) hosts, the other does not.

I am not sure what you mean by "host". The other poster is correct: The Sugar and Rose are paired together every year, such that those bowls are always either both hosting playoff games (like this year), or else both not hosting playoff games. There are never any years when the Rose is a playoff bowl but not the Sugar, or the Sugar is a playoff bowl but not the Rose.

(09-15-2014 10:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 09:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 09:34 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 09:34 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 09:08 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  "against the highest ranked available school from either the Big Ten Conference,Southeastern Conference (SEC) or Notre Dame"

One way to read the highlighted section is that it's the highest ranked team from the pool of 29 teams in the B10/SEC/ND. A second way to read it is the committee can place the highest ranked team out of the three discrete conferences/ND in the Orange Bowl.

I'm not sure that's ambiguous--I don't see that they've left themselves another option, so it would be embarrassing if they pulled secret language out of their briefcases and bypassed #8 Minnesota for #10 Missouri or whatever.

What _is_ ambiguous, I think, is the term "highest ranked available school". Does the Orange Bowl get to pick before the Access Bowls, or after?

Everything I have seen is before the access bowls.

But in the immediately previous post, the Big Ten champion is in the Access Bowl rather than the Orange Bowl. Now that I think about it, that's a separate agreement from the OB contracts. So the Orange Bowl could take a #5 SEC runner-up, but not a #7 Big Ten champion.

The Orange Bowl's contract with the SEC and B1G and ND trumps the Access Bowl at-large allocations, so its slots are filled first. Similarly, the Rose and Sugar Bowl contracts with the SEC and B1G trump their contracts with the Orange Bowl.

That said, the Orange does not get to "take" anyone, if that is meant to mean they actually get to pick and choose. They don't. The contracts determine for the Orange who its teams are, it has no discretion.

With one exception: If the B1G/SEC/ND opponent dictated by the contract would result in a rematch with the ACC team, the Orange can pass over that opponent team in favor of the next-highest ranked available team, if it doesn't want a rematch.

One other exception, I think. If the Rose and Sugar are semis and the B1G or SEC champ is displaced, they go to an Access Bowl instead of the Orange. That's part of the contract where the Access Bowls guarantee a spot to homeless champions.

EDIT: Found a source for the Access Bowls having dibs on homeless champions: http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...-agreement

(09-15-2014 10:43 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 10:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 09:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 09:34 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 09:34 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I'm not sure that's ambiguous--I don't see that they've left themselves another option, so it would be embarrassing if they pulled secret language out of their briefcases and bypassed #8 Minnesota for #10 Missouri or whatever.

What _is_ ambiguous, I think, is the term "highest ranked available school". Does the Orange Bowl get to pick before the Access Bowls, or after?

Everything I have seen is before the access bowls.

But in the immediately previous post, the Big Ten champion is in the Access Bowl rather than the Orange Bowl. Now that I think about it, that's a separate agreement from the OB contracts. So the Orange Bowl could take a #5 SEC runner-up, but not a #7 Big Ten champion.

The Orange Bowl's contract with the SEC and B1G and ND trumps the Access Bowl at-large allocations, so its slots are filled first. Similarly, the Rose and Sugar Bowl contracts with the SEC and B1G trump their contracts with the Orange Bowl.

That said, the Orange does not get to "take" anyone, if that is meant to mean they actually get to pick and choose. They don't. The contracts determine for the Orange who its teams are, it has no discretion.

With one exception: If the B1G/SEC/ND opponent dictated by the contract would result in a rematch with the ACC team, the Orange can pass over that opponent team in favor of the next-highest ranked available team, if it doesn't want a rematch.

One other exception, I think. If the Rose and Sugar are semis and the B1G or SEC champ is displaced, they go to an Access Bowl instead of the Orange. That's part of the contract where the Access Bowls guarantee a spot to homeless champions.

EDIT: Found a source for the Access Bowls having dibs on homeless champions: http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...-agreement

Also on the CFP website.

(09-15-2014 10:41 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 10:24 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I think you misunderstand my post.

I'm not sure what you mean by the Rose and the Sugar are together in years. The Rose and Sugar can't be together when the OB isn't hosting (and when the OB is hosting, it doesn't feature non-FF games). When the OB isn't hosting, one of the Rose or the Sugar has to host. When that bowl (Rose or the Sugar) hosts, the other does not.

No, this year the Rose and Sugar host semifinals. Next year the Orange and Cotton, and then the PEach and Fiesta.

OH, it was my understanding that, on one side of the equation, the Rose would host one year, then the Sugar, and then the Orange (well maybe in not in that order but you get the point). On the other side of the equation, the Peach would host, then the Cotton, and then the Fiesta (well maybe in not in that order but you get the point).

That way there's always one Access Bowl and one Contract Bowl hosting. However, you're saying that it will rotate between 2 Contract Bowls hosting, a Contract Bowl and an Access Bowl, and 2 Access Bowls?

That seems really weird.

(09-15-2014 10:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 10:24 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 09:34 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 09:25 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 03:47 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Yes, the Commitee must fufill the contract bowls requirements first.

Assume both the SEC #1 and B1G #1 make the FF. It's my understanding that the SEC #1 plays in the Sugar Bowl and the B1G #1 plays in an at-large spot in the Peach/Cotton/Fiesta (Assuming the Rose is hosting). Then the OB can select the higher of the B1G #2, the SEC #2, and Notre Dame, provided that the SEC/B1G hasn't 't already gone 3x and that ND hasn't already gone 2x. Then that team is excluded.

That's BS. The OB *should* get the first pick out of the teams that would be playing in the Rose/Sugar (regardless of conference affiliation) when the Rose/Sugar hosts and the OB *should* pay the visitor slightly more than the Access Bowls and the ACC should pocket the rest. Otherwise, the ACC should be given a wide latitude to pick ND over higher-ranked B1G/SEC teams so long as ND is ranked within x spaces (or something like that).

Failure to secure either of the above described agreements is a complete failure on Swofford. The TV contract filled with nepotism is pretty bad, but the OB agreement is inexcusable. I don't care when it was negotiated. Things were never *that* bleak. The OB agreement is absolute garbage.

If I think I understand your post- there's a few things wrong with it. 1st off- the Rose and Sugar are together in years. So if B10 or SEC champ don't make the playoff- they will go to access bowl.

Also, the Orange gets the highest ranked then of SEC 2/B10 2/ or ND- but in the 8 times, they have to have SEC and Big Ten at least 3 times. There is no min for ND- but a max of 2.

And yes, the Orange agreement from the day it was announced has always been that bleak for the ACC. It was a terrible agreement and everyone knew it pretty much right away.

I think you misunderstand my post.

I'm not sure what you mean by the Rose and the Sugar are together in years. The Rose and Sugar can't be together when the OB isn't hosting (and when the OB is hosting, it doesn't feature non-FF games). When the OB isn't hosting, one of the Rose or the Sugar has to host. When that bowl (Rose or the Sugar) hosts, the other does not.

I am not sure what you mean by "host". The other poster is correct: The Sugar and Rose are paired together every year, such that those bowls are always either both hosting playoff games (like this year), or else both not hosting playoff games. There are never any years when the Rose is a playoff bowl but not the Sugar, or the Sugar is a playoff bowl but not the Rose.

"Host" means be a site of a FF game.

(09-15-2014 11:53 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  That way there's always one Access Bowl and one Contract Bowl hosting. However, you're saying that it will rotate between 2 Contract Bowls hosting, a Contract Bowl and an Access Bowl, and 2 Access Bowls?

That seems really weird.

I agree. One Access and one Contract would be what I expected, with one western and one eastern (or two central)--Rose-Peach, Orange-Fiesta, Sugar-Cotton. That way you'd have a more consistent number of at-large spots --

Ahh. One problem with that is in the Sugar-Cotton year, the Sugar and Cotton are primetime games, so the Rose and Fiesta both have to move to the afternoon window--no, that's not actually a problem. The Rose is already in the afternoon window, and doesn't move anyway.

I think you'd want to minimize displaced conference champions. Expect displaced PAC and XII champs to go to the Fiesta, SEC champs to go to the Peach, B1G champ to the PEach or Fiesta, ACC champ to the Cotton. Hmm, was the weird schedule a small concession to Jerrah and JerryWorld, as he'd otherwise miss out on ever getting a non-ACC conference champ? Do the Access Bowls want homeless champs that badly, or would they rather have a top-ten pick? (A homeless champ is as likely to be a 10-3 Duke as it is a 10-3 Nebraska or USC or Tennessee)

My guess is that if Auburn were number 5 and ND were number 9, the ACC would have the option to take and would take ND. The ACC receives an extra $14 million when ND is selected and will want to make sure that it is selected twice during the contract term. It's not like Auburn would be left homeless.

(09-16-2014 07:44 AM)orangefan Wrote:  My guess is that if Auburn were number 5 and ND were number 9, the ACC would have the option to take and would take ND. The ACC receives an extra $14 million when ND is selected and will want to make sure that it is selected twice during the contract term. It's not like Auburn would be left homeless.

of course that would be an ACC's fan guess(hope)- but that just isn't the way it is done. from the start- they've said it's the highest rated of the group.

If there are multiple eligibles in the top 12, there will be wiggle room in the placement early on. Outside of top 12, no way highest ranked gets jumped, again taking into account the minimum placement requirements.

(09-16-2014 07:44 AM)orangefan Wrote:  My guess is that if Auburn were number 5 and ND were number 9, the ACC would have the option to take and would take ND. The ACC receives an extra $14 million when ND is selected and will want to make sure that it is selected twice during the contract term. It's not like Auburn would be left homeless.

I don't believe the ACC has any say in who gets chosen and neither does the Orange Bowl. It's all up to committee. Even the committee's options are pretty limited. They receive the rules for how to place teams as they've been negotiated and the only flexibility that's provided is to prevent a rematch. If the rules say Auburn, based on their ranking, goes to go the Orange Bowl, I don't think anyone can change that without either rewriting the rules or changing the rankings.

(09-16-2014 08:14 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  If there are multiple eligibles in the top 12, there will be wiggle room in the placement early on. Outside of top 12, no way highest ranked gets jumped, again taking into account the minimum placement requirements.

If that was the case, they would not have said highest ranked. For one, the SEC and Big Ten wouldn't have agreed to that. They just wouldn't. They were the ones doing the favor to the ACC. Do you really think the SEC or Big Ten would allow for that? Not a chance.

The only wiggle room the Orange has is to avoid a rematch. So say Clemson is the ACC team, and South Carolina is #5. They can skip South Carolina. But if LSU is #6, they have to take them, even if Notre Dame is #7.

Not at the expense of sec/b10 being left out totally. But maybe to another access bowl depending on matchup, geography, tv etc. I just wouldn't be surprised early on.

(09-16-2014 08:41 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  Not at the expense of sec/b10 being left out totally. But maybe to another access bowl depending on matchup, geography, tv etc. I just wouldn't be surprised early on.

I think you are really grasping. Nothing that has been put out by any non-ACC fans indicates this at all.