during the 12 year agreement the Rose Bowl instead of hosting the Semis 4 times which would be the norm could be as few as twice during the 12 year agreement to preserve the B1G/Pac 12 arrangement:

Still to be determined, how often during that 12-year rotation the Rose Bowl actually hosts a semifinal. The average would be four considering six bowls are going to be involved. However, there is speculation that the Rose could host as few as two national semis during that period, thus preserving its preferred traditional matchup more often.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...th-abcespn

I wonder if the # of times Rose actually hosts the SF would be contingent not only on that, but who gets the remainder of the games.. I could easily see if Fox gets it where Rose would be "encouraged" by ESPN to keep it's slots.

Also, I wonder if the Champions bowl may do a similar getting seperate tv deal as well as only host maybe twice as well...

posted on a different thread- but it's pertinent here:
IF Rose and Champs host 2 sf each only.
that leaves 20 sf games available. 20/4 other BCS bowls= 5 sf per bowl.
-or-
if Orange did same thing, and only hosted 2 sf only
18 sf games available/3 other BCS bowls= 6 sf per bowl

I'd be surprised if the Rose didn't get a preference on Big Ten and Pac12 teams when it rotates in the semis.

(06-28-2012 11:51 AM)Sammy11 Wrote:  I'd be surprised if the Rose didn't get a preference on Big Ten and Pac12 teams when it rotates in the semis.

I don't see it at all. Like last year, they're not going to have Oregon vs LSU at the Rose Bowl.

(06-28-2012 11:54 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-28-2012 11:51 AM)Sammy11 Wrote:  I'd be surprised if the Rose didn't get a preference on Big Ten and Pac12 teams when it rotates in the semis.

I don't see it at all. Like last year, they're not going to have Oregon vs LSU at the Rose Bowl.

They would if Oregon was #1 or 2 (as they were in the 2010 season). This is easily done, not just for Pac and B1G teams but for any #1 or #2 team, the committee will likely assign the higher seeds to the site they are most likely to prefer. So if LSU is #1 and the Sugar has a semi, LSU gets to play in New Orleans.

And on the flip side, the committee is likely to try to avoid giving a virtual home field to a #4 seed, so if Wisconsin is #1 and Miami is #4, the committee is not going to put that game in the Orange Bowl.

(06-28-2012 12:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-28-2012 11:54 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-28-2012 11:51 AM)Sammy11 Wrote:  I'd be surprised if the Rose didn't get a preference on Big Ten and Pac12 teams when it rotates in the semis.

I don't see it at all. Like last year, they're not going to have Oregon vs LSU at the Rose Bowl.

They would if Oregon was #1 or 2 (as they were in the 2010 season). This is easily done, not just for Pac and B1G teams but for any #1 or #2 team, the committee will likely assign the higher seeds to the site they are most likely to prefer. So if LSU is #1 and the Sugar has a semi, LSU gets to play in New Orleans.

And on the flip side, the committee is likely to try to avoid giving a virtual home field to a #4 seed, so if Wisconsin is #1 and Miami is #4, the committee is not going to put that game in the Orange Bowl.

agreed with you 100% on all counts....

(06-28-2012 11:51 AM)Sammy11 Wrote:  I'd be surprised if the Rose didn't get a preference on Big Ten and Pac12 teams when it rotates in the semis.

Sammy, if it's a seeded tournament you can't give any preference, unless the Pac12 or B1G team is ranked #1-2. If they're #3-4, they'll be the visitor in whatever game they play...

(06-28-2012 12:43 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-28-2012 11:51 AM)Sammy11 Wrote:  I'd be surprised if the Rose didn't get a preference on Big Ten and Pac12 teams when it rotates in the semis.

Sammy, if it's a seeded tournament you can't give any preference, unless the Pac12 or B1G team is ranked #1-2. If they're #3-4, they'll be the visitor in whatever game they play...

Unless Big Ten were #3 and Pac 12 were #4.

(06-28-2012 12:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-28-2012 11:54 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-28-2012 11:51 AM)Sammy11 Wrote:  I'd be surprised if the Rose didn't get a preference on Big Ten and Pac12 teams when it rotates in the semis.

I don't see it at all. Like last year, they're not going to have Oregon vs LSU at the Rose Bowl.

They would if Oregon was #1 or 2 (as they were in the 2010 season). This is easily done, not just for Pac and B1G teams but for any #1 or #2 team, the committee will likely assign the higher seeds to the site they are most likely to prefer. So if LSU is #1 and the Sugar has a semi, LSU gets to play in New Orleans.

And on the flip side, the committee is likely to try to avoid giving a virtual home field to a #4 seed, so if Wisconsin is #1 and Miami is #4, the committee is not going to put that game in the Orange Bowl.

Don't forget that the committee can seed however the heck they want to. If the Rose is the SF in 2016 and they have to choose between PSU or Oklahoma as the 2 seed, they can easily put PSU #2 so that the Rose can have a traditional team. Especially if that is the ONLY way to get the Rose a Pac-12/Big Ten team at all.

(06-28-2012 01:18 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(06-28-2012 12:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-28-2012 11:54 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-28-2012 11:51 AM)Sammy11 Wrote:  I'd be surprised if the Rose didn't get a preference on Big Ten and Pac12 teams when it rotates in the semis.

I don't see it at all. Like last year, they're not going to have Oregon vs LSU at the Rose Bowl.

They would if Oregon was #1 or 2 (as they were in the 2010 season). This is easily done, not just for Pac and B1G teams but for any #1 or #2 team, the committee will likely assign the higher seeds to the site they are most likely to prefer. So if LSU is #1 and the Sugar has a semi, LSU gets to play in New Orleans.

And on the flip side, the committee is likely to try to avoid giving a virtual home field to a #4 seed, so if Wisconsin is #1 and Miami is #4, the committee is not going to put that game in the Orange Bowl.

Don't forget that the committee can seed however the heck they want to. If the Rose is the SF in 2016 and they have to choose between PSU or Oklahoma as the 2 seed, they can easily put PSU #2 so that the Rose can have a traditional team. Especially if that is the ONLY way to get the Rose a Pac-12/Big Ten team at all.

I think the #1 team is going to dictate the bowl assignments most of the time.

(06-28-2012 12:53 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-28-2012 12:43 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-28-2012 11:51 AM)Sammy11 Wrote:  I'd be surprised if the Rose didn't get a preference on Big Ten and Pac12 teams when it rotates in the semis.

Sammy, if it's a seeded tournament you can't give any preference, unless the Pac12 or B1G team is ranked #1-2. If they're #3-4, they'll be the visitor in whatever game they play...

Unless Big Ten were #3 and Pac 12 were #4.

True. But the chance for that happening, is pretty small. It will probably happen about once every 50 years...

(06-28-2012 01:30 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-28-2012 12:53 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-28-2012 12:43 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-28-2012 11:51 AM)Sammy11 Wrote:  I'd be surprised if the Rose didn't get a preference on Big Ten and Pac12 teams when it rotates in the semis.

Sammy, if it's a seeded tournament you can't give any preference, unless the Pac12 or B1G team is ranked #1-2. If they're #3-4, they'll be the visitor in whatever game they play...

Unless Big Ten were #3 and Pac 12 were #4.

True. But the chance for that happening, is pretty small. It will probably happen about once every 50 years...

Well, it happened once in the last 10 years- in 2003
1 Oklahoma, 2 LSU, 3 USC, 4 Michigan

But there wasn't a playoff in the last 10 years either. So it doesn't count...

(06-28-2012 01:33 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-28-2012 01:30 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-28-2012 12:53 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-28-2012 12:43 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-28-2012 11:51 AM)Sammy11 Wrote:  I'd be surprised if the Rose didn't get a preference on Big Ten and Pac12 teams when it rotates in the semis.

Sammy, if it's a seeded tournament you can't give any preference, unless the Pac12 or B1G team is ranked #1-2. If they're #3-4, they'll be the visitor in whatever game they play...

Unless Big Ten were #3 and Pac 12 were #4.

True. But the chance for that happening, is pretty small. It will probably happen about once every 50 years...

Well, it happened once in the last 10 years- in 2003
1 Oklahoma, 2 LSU, 3 USC, 4 Michigan

Add 2011 to that. Both #1 and #2 can't take the SEC's host bowl unless they play each other.

Practically I think/hope that if two-three teams are essentially even anyway, the committee will consider match-ups and rematches with its seeds. For instance, if you have USC who is clearly #1, Florida at #2, and they think Ohio State and Virginia Tech are pretty close at 3/4, but that Ohio State has a slight edge, I hope they rank Ohio State #4 still so that we get a Big Ten/PAC-12 Rose Bowl (when that's a semi-final). Similarly if you have Alabama and Florida State very close at the top (but a slight edge to Alabama) and have Oregon at #3 and Tennessee at #4, then I hope they give us Alabama vs. Oregon and Florida State vs. Tennessee.

http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2012/6/28/...rticipants

OK we have the Rose Bowl announcement with Dodds' statement that participants in the RB would be replaced from other PAC/B1G teams if those champions made the playoffs.

And we have Stewart Mandel's interview with Bill Hancock saying that the selection committee will pair all 6 games, and it could be comprised of the committee's top 12 regardless of contractual tie-in.

Basically, I think this is really an issue for years like 2007, where Ohio State finished #1 and the next best ranked B1G team finished #13 (Illinois). If they truly are to pit the top 12 by selection committee, does Illinois make the Rose Bowl as a replacement for Ohio State? If so, that's actually worse than AQ - as the B1G already got their champion into the BCS and now gets to have a second team automatically selected as well, despite not being adequately ranked.

Both could be right.

(06-28-2012 03:23 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2012/6/28/...rticipants

OK we have the Rose Bowl announcement with Dodds' statement that participants in the RB would be replaced from other PAC/B1G teams if those champions made the playoffs.

And we have Stewart Mandel's interview with Bill Hancock saying that the selection committee will pair all 6 games, and it could be comprised of the committee's top 12 regardless of contractual tie-in.

Basically, I think this is really an issue for years like 2007, where Ohio State finished #1 and the next best ranked B1G team finished #13 (Illinois). If they truly are to pit the top 12 by selection committee, does Illinois make the Rose Bowl as a replacement for Ohio State? If so, that's actually worse than AQ - as the B1G already got their champion into the BCS and now gets to have a second team automatically selected as well, despite not being adequately ranked.

Both could be right.

The committee is not going to choose teams for the "contract bowls". That's the difference between those bowls and the other bowls in the new package.

(06-28-2012 03:23 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2012/6/28/...rticipants

OK we have the Rose Bowl announcement with Dodds' statement that participants in the RB would be replaced from other PAC/B1G teams if those champions made the playoffs.

And we have Stewart Mandel's interview with Bill Hancock saying that the selection committee will pair all 6 games, and it could be comprised of the committee's top 12 regardless of contractual tie-in.

Basically, I think this is really an issue for years like 2007, where Ohio State finished #1 and the next best ranked B1G team finished #13 (Illinois). If they truly are to pit the top 12 by selection committee, does Illinois make the Rose Bowl as a replacement for Ohio State? If so, that's actually worse than AQ - as the B1G already got their champion into the BCS and now gets to have a second team automatically selected as well, despite not being adequately ranked.

Both could be right.

Mandel doesn't say that. He expanded on Twitter to say that the contractual tie-ins are definitely in place:

https://twitter.com/slmandel/status/218425096015069185

https://twitter.com/slmandel/status/218425376618201088

The Big Ten champ gets to be either in the Rose or another top bowl when the Rose is a semifinal no matter how low it's ranked. The other power conferences have the same deal.

What's more of an open question is what happens if the Big Ten champ is in a semifinal and Big Ten #2 is only ranked #18. It's unclear (at least with the stories that have come out so far) whether a non-semifinal Rose Bowl can take Big Ten #2 in that situation.

(06-28-2012 03:41 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  What's more of an open question is what happens if the Big Ten champ is in a semifinal and Big Ten #2 is only ranked #18. It's unclear (at least with the stories that have come out so far) whether a non-semifinal Rose Bowl can take Big Ten #2 in that situation.

Good question. If the answer is that a Big Ten/PAC-12 team is in, then I think the whole contract vs. access bowl distinction is unneeded. Everything could be summed up with one simple rule,

"Every conference may sign one contract with a non-semi-final BCS bowl. All other selections be decided by committee."

This would the Big Ten/PAC-12 sign a deal with the Fiesta Bowl to host in years when the Rose Bowl was a semi-finals and others to do the same. It also still technically ends AQ as any conference is free to sign a contract with any willing bowl.