(01-07-2014 03:15 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 03:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 03:02 PM)stever20 Wrote:  If the #4 team is knocked out, do you really think they give a rip that the 2nd round is at home sites? Big Ten/Pac 12 would have such a potential huge unfair advantage that it is total crap.

SEC/ACC/B12 will NEVER go along with that. Nor would TV. Rose Bowl did ok when TCU was in there. The Rose Bowl is the star- not the Big Ten/Pac 12.

The Big Ten and Pac-12 MADE the Rose Bowl the star. Sure, if you only get an anomaly like TCU every once in awhile, then it doesn't detract what makes the Rose Bowl special in the first place (although the Rose gritted its teeth in having to take TCU as opposed to an at-large Stanford, who it would have taken 100 times out of 100 if it wasn't contractually obligated to do otherwise). However, if you just have random teams playing in the Rose Bowl every year, then it's not really the Rose Bowl anymore and becomes just another neutral site game that happens to be played in Pasadena. That might not mean much to the other conferences that sold out their traditions years ago, but the irony is that the Big Ten and Pac-12 managed to keep a significantly higher level of brand equity long-term than all of the other leagues. Even if the Sugar Bowl might pay out the same amount on paper, it still pales in comparison to the Rose Parade exposure and everything else that comes with the Rose Bowl. Don't blame the Big Ten and Pac-12 that they actually have an asset (the Rose Bowl) that still matters and has value beyond a contract.

The thing is- the Big Ten and Pac 12 don't have the control they had even 20 years ago. They aren't calling the shots now, and won't be going forward. Just look at the evolution of the playoff that we have starting next year. Big Ten and Pac 12 got NOTHING they wanted out of it. So why anyone would expect them to get something that would put the other 3 P5 conferences at a competitive disadvantage next time just blows my mind. That's the bottom line.

The reason is that I believe that the "moral authority" changes drastically between a 4-team playoff and an 8-team playoff. In a 4-team playoff, the SEC simply had the better argument (and I've said as much many times here) - everything that the Big Ten and Pac-12 asked for subverted the essence of the 4-team playoff. If we go to an 8-team playoff where every power conference gets an auto-bid, then it's a dramatically different situation. At the very least, 2 power conference champs will HAVE to play each other in the first round in that scenario. There just happens to be two conferences that actually WANT to play each other, while others would prefer to get the easiest path to the championship game. (And no, the traditional Rose Bowl matchup is NOT the easiest path to the championship game every year, despite what a lot of SEC fans might want to believe.) The Big Ten also doesn't b*tch about not having a single bowl within its footprint and is willing to send its teams across the country, whereas the SEC has 4 of the 6 CFP bowls in their region, so spare me any supposed "bracket integrity" disadvantages the SEC might have to face in games that are played in their backyard.

At the same time, preserving the bowls obviously gets more difficult as you move to a larger playoff. If you don't preserve conference tie-ins, then you might as well kill the bowls entirely at that point because all you're doing otherwise is to have neutral site games with no real rhyme or reason while slapping a bowl name on it. Now, that might be perfectly fine for a lot of fans, but the powers that be have shown that they very much care about the bowls (which is what this plan preserves).

The Rose Bowl though does subvert the matchups in a way that does make it the easiest path to the championship. The 6th place team should NEVER get to play the worst team in the tournament when all 8 teams are playing in 1 round(something the NFL doesn't do when you bring up your division champions).

I'm sorry but the Big Ten and Pac 12 don't have the control they had 20 years ago. 20 years ago they controlled everything. That time has passed.

(01-07-2014 03:21 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The crap here is the "What happened last year will happen forever" short-term thinking. If the #4 team didn't win its conference and other teams that actually won their games on-the-field take up too many spots, then tough luck. It's amazing that we go through all of this conference realignment and emphasizing the importance of your league and then we're suddenly supposed to completely ignore whether someone actually won their league.

And you're so far off about TV - if it was their choice, there would be an 8-team playoff consisting of Ohio State, Florida, Texas, Alabama, Notre Dame, USC, Michigan and Florida State every year . The ranking/seeding number that happens to be in front of their name is meaningless to the TV people as long as it knows that they are playing elimination games in a playoff. If there are objective rules to get into the playoff, then people have shown to be fine with that. We see it in the NFL virtually every year where teams with better records get trumped by teams that won their divisions. What ought to be more bothersome is having so much competitively and financially determined by subjective factors by a handful of people in a smoke-filled room on a Sunday morning in December. Taking as much out of the hands of the committee where they need to decide as little as possible ought to be the long-term goal.

And this is the crap we get when Frank takes things to the extreme. No, no one wants to see those programs in a playoff if they are coming off 8-4 seasons. People want to see Boise St at 12-0 over 8-4 ND. That's a storyline that TV can sell better than a crappy "brand name". You were wrong about the G5 getting locked out of an autobid in the 6 BCS bowl rotation. You were wrong about conference champions getting protected for the playoff. Stop taking things to the extreme and stop living in the past. No need to make nonsensical statements to prove a point.

Let's look at this year, what would the Rose Bowl want in a 4 team playoff? Would they really want Auburn/Bama in that game? No. But that's probably what they end up with for the semi-final, and there's not a damn thing anyone is going to do about it. Then you could argue, "Oh a semi-final is automatically more valuable than a B1G/Pac matchup regardless of who is slotted there." But that sort of prove Steve's point does it not? Stop living in the past.

(01-07-2014 03:46 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Let's look at this year, what would the Rose Bowl want? Would they really want Auburn/Bama in that game?

Are you asking what the conferences want, or are you asking what the people running the Rose Bowl want?

If it's the latter, they want the best game and they want to bring in the most people and tourist dollars. They don't want to say so publicly because of the relationships with the conferences, but I'm pretty sure that as long as they can keep the game where it is on January 1, they'd love to have a semifinal every year.

(01-07-2014 03:56 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Are you asking what the conferences want, or are you asking what the people running the Rose Bowl want?

If it's the latter, they want the best game and they want to bring in the most people and tourist dollars. They don't want to say so publicly because of the relationships with the conferences, but I'm pretty sure that as long as they can keep the game where it is on January 1, they'd love to have a semifinal every year.

I think the Rose would want a consistent partner that provides equal competitiveness and excitement, which is obvious. So between Auburn and MSU, they'd want MSU in the game, since the drop off between them and Auburn doesn't appear to be massive. They'd still take Bama/Auburn if that's the consolation. It's a win win every third year of the system I agree. Do you have the justification to drop Auburn below MSU to avoid a rematch in the Rose? I'd say no, based on how the year played out prior to the bowl season. So while there would still be a preference, there is also little flexibility. Even on the broadcast last night, Musbureger emphasized seeded playoffs. The mock rankings come out mid way. They are what they are when they come out sometime in October. Teams can't all of a sudden flip flop the last week of the year for the convenience of Bowl slotting and fans.

(01-07-2014 04:25 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 03:56 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Are you asking what the conferences want, or are you asking what the people running the Rose Bowl want?

If it's the latter, they want the best game and they want to bring in the most people and tourist dollars. They don't want to say so publicly because of the relationships with the conferences, but I'm pretty sure that as long as they can keep the game where it is on January 1, they'd love to have a semifinal every year.

I think the Rose would want a consistent partner that provides equal competitiveness and excitement (which is obvious). So between Auburn and MSU, they'd want MSU in the game, since the drop off between them and Auburn doesn't appear to be massive. They'd still take Bama/Auburn if that's the consolation. It's a win win every third year of the system I agree. Do you have the justification to drop Auburn below MSU to avoid a rematch in the Rose? I'd say no, based on how the year played out prior to the bowl season. So while there would still be a preference, there is also little flexibility.

We'll have to disagree on the first point, then. I still think the Rose would take a semifinal every year if they could get it.

As for the "rematch question", the issue is how close the #3 and 4 teams are. If the #3 team is much better, then it's unfair to the #1 team to have to play #3 instead of #4. But if #3 and 4 are close to equal, then avoiding the rematch seems like the right way to go.

(01-07-2014 04:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  We'll have to disagree on the first point, then. I still think the Rose would take a semifinal every year if they could get it.

As for the "rematch question", the issue is how close the #3 and 4 teams are. If the #3 team is much better, then it's unfair to the #1 team to have to play #3 instead of #4. But if #3 and 4 are close to equal, then avoiding the rematch seems like the right way to go.

We don't disagree. The Rose would want #1-4 match ups every year, but they'd obviously prefer Pac/B1G teams if they are ranked in that group. This year means they probably miss out on MSU though. I believe FSU/MSU would be their preferred semifinal, but the Sugar takes that game since it's more forgiving to Tallahassee fans.