(12-01-2019 07:47 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(12-01-2019 07:21 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I fully anticipate that when the CFP is up for its next cycle that the OB will not unconditionally take the next best ACC team and that They will want the option to take ND instead. The ACC has zero depth at the top and until they can start yielding a decent #2 the OB is going to be a joke.

The Orange Bowl doesn’t care about where teams are ranked. That’s not what bowl games are about. Bowl games are for tourism. They want teams that will bring people to fill up hotel rooms, eat in restaurants, shop in stores etc.

How many tickets the participating programs buy are more important than the records of the teams.

Which is exactly why it wouldn't be shocking in the least for the Orange Bowl to want an option for ND in situations like this in the next contract. Hell no the ACC shouldn't let ND have the ACC spot this time, but there's not a debate in the world that if given the choice regardless of record they'd pick ND over UVA every single time.

(12-02-2019 02:43 PM)esayem Wrote:  So Ohio State blowing out the entire Big Ten doesn’t matter? Wisconsin doesn’t deserve a NY6 more than any other team when they’ve already been worked by 30 points. Let’s see if Ohio State will hang 60 on them on Saturday. Michigan got embarrassed and they’re probably going to the Citrus or some other high paying contract bowl.

If you haven’t watched UVA, please do. They’re quite fun to watch.

You're right, Virginia is fun to watch.

I think most are looking at the overall sos of the ACC teams this year. It is pretty lousy this year compared to what it's been previous years. It happens, it's happened to other conferences recently including the BIG and it's going to happen every year moving forward. Its NOT that the ACC scheduled horribly this year, they didn't. It's just the teams haven't played out as good as expected.

Sit back and just wait for bowl season. The ACC could go in and knockout every team they play. That will be the true test of conferences as a whole.

(12-02-2019 04:48 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-01-2019 07:47 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(12-01-2019 07:21 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I fully anticipate that when the CFP is up for its next cycle that the OB will not unconditionally take the next best ACC team and that They will want the option to take ND instead. The ACC has zero depth at the top and until they can start yielding a decent #2 the OB is going to be a joke.

The Orange Bowl doesn’t care about where teams are ranked. That’s not what bowl games are about. Bowl games are for tourism. They want teams that will bring people to fill up hotel rooms, eat in restaurants, shop in stores etc.

How many tickets the participating programs buy are more important than the records of the teams.

Which is exactly why it wouldn't be shocking in the least for the Orange Bowl to want an option for ND in situations like this in the next contract. Hell no the ACC shouldn't let ND have the ACC spot this time, but there's not a debate in the world that if given the choice regardless of record they'd pick ND over UVA every single time.

They would pick Notre Dame every single time against anyone but FSU or Clemson. And they would pick ND if they were within two wins of those schools. Absolutely idiotic for the ACC to allow that.

(12-02-2019 03:37 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 03:03 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 02:36 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 01:26 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 12:10 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Exactly.

Just throwing out an idea for the ACC to help a business partner is a less than ideal situation for all

When "helping a business partner" means giving up a $27.5 million payout from the Orange Bowl that's shared between all members of the ACC, then that makes zero sense from the ACC. It's not as if though the Orange Bowl can provide a corresponding upside to the ACC if the ACC has a particularly deep and great year, so why would the ACC provide relief on the downside? These bowls are called "Contract Bowls" for a reason - they're filled by contract as opposed to pure merit.

In fact, the entire reason why the ACC and other P5 conferences *want* contract bowls are *exactly* for situations like this year with the ACC. The P5 leagues don't need the contract bowls when they have multiple schools in the top 10. Instead, the most valuable aspect of the contract bowls for the P5 conferences is that they guarantee money and access for them in a *down* year. Otherwise, the bowls are of no value to the P5 conferences. In turn, that is why the bowls agree to take mediocre P5 champs if necessary since they know that the P5 leagues could kill off the bowls entirely if they wanted to do so (with the ability to move the playoff system outside of the bowls).

As i stated in my original post, the ACC would still be paid as if UVA went to the Orange Bowl and Notre Dame would still be paid as if they went to the Citrus/Camping World Bowl

The only thing changing would be UVA and Notre Dame swapping bowl slots to help out the ACC premier bowl partner the Orange Bowl from a crappy matchup with an unranked team

Even if you could make the money even, what can the Orange Bowl provide to the ACC on the upside when they have exceptionally great years? Why is the onus on the ACC to "help out" the Orange Bowl in a down year when the Orange Bowl can't provide any corresponding incentive to the ACC in a particularly great year?

The contract bowls are about mitigating risk year-to-year. The Orange Bowl signed the contract with the ACC because without such contract, it could get sent to the access bowl pool where it would have to deal with (God forbid!) having to take G5 schools like NIU again or, even worse, the non-CFP bowl lineup where it can't have access to the semifinal games.

That's the real quid pro quo here: the contract with the ACC guarantees that the Orange Bowl has that status without having to continuously prove itself to the powers that be (unlike the Peach, Fiesta and Cotton Bowls that could be swapped out at any given moment by a more attractive competing bowl offer). As a result, the Orange Bowl will gladly take teams like Virginia (just as the Rose Bowl had an unranked Wisconsin team a few years ago) because the long game is preserving that long-term relationship with the ACC. At the end of the day, it's the ACC that gives the Orange Bowl power as opposed to the other way around. The last thing that the Orange Bowl wants is to see, say, the Peach Bowl get the ACC's contract bowl tie-in when the next CFP contract gets signed because the Orange Bowl was short-sighted in being willing to dump UVA in a particular season. A lot of people are totally misreading which party has the most leverage here - it's the ACC that has the power in this relationship.

The ACC needs to keep the Orange Bowl happy. Whats to prevent the Orange Bowl from dumping the ACC tie in next round of contracts? The Orange Bowl would be fine taking the next two highest ranked after the playoffs and Sugar/Rose tieins get filled and would probably pay more than the others to avoid a G5. Keeping a crucial partner satisfied is the onus as is maintianing the long term relationship.

Yes the ACC could move their tiein to the Peach, but would the Peach pay as much as the Orange Bowl does? The Orange Bowl already pays less than the Sugar and Rose. Come next contract that money could be reduced or the gap worsened the bowl partner is not happy.

I'm sure the Orange would take the next two highest after the CFP, but that's not an option for them.

You have the relationship backwards. The Orange Bowl isn't throwing around more money because of their rich tradition, great title sponsors, or shrewd bowl committee. ESPN was willing to pay $55M for the gave because it was a contract bowl. If it's no longer a contract bowl - and that contract game moves from Miami to Atlanta - the Orange will find itself on equal footing with the Fiesta and Cotton.

Rest assured the Orange Bowl much prefers being "stuck" with UVA from the ACC than they would be getting forced to take the G5 rep every couple of years.

(12-02-2019 04:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-01-2019 08:01 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  It was a down year for the ACC, but this on-going rhetoric of "awful" is going too far. Many ACC teams started the season with a loss thanks to playing conference games in the first couple of weeks in support of the launch of the ACC Network. Meanwhile, teams in other conferences were getting fat off of cupcake wins. So when conference play began in earnest, those teams had zero or one loss and were ranked. Now that the season is over and everyone has played their full conference schedule, the picture is a bit different...

P5 Teams with 8-4 record or better:
ACC (4): Clemson, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
Big XII (4): Oklahoma, Baylor, Oklahoma St, Kansas St
Big Ten (7): Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana
Pac-12 (3): Oregon, Utah, USC
SEC (5): Georgia, Florida, LSU, Alabama, Auburn
Independent (1): Notre Dame

Total P5 teams with fewer than 5 losses: 24

source: https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2019/...12119.html

The Big Ten has great depth this year, but the rest are about equal in terms of depth (not trying to compare Auburn to Wake Forest here, but the NUMBER of teams is comparable in every P5 league not named Big Ten). Would I have liked to see more 10-win teams in the ACC? SURE! But 9-3 and 8-4 isn't exactly trash...

Make 9-3 or better the parameters and watch just how different the rest become. You should have majored in propaganda. I've never seen a poster anywhere that finagles the numbers any better than you do in the effort to make their conference look better by comparison.

At 9-3 it breaks down like this:
ACC (2): Clemson 12-0, Virginia 9-3 / Total wins among the top two 21
B12 (2): Oklahoma 11-1, Baylor 11-1 / Total wins among the top two 22
PAC (2): Utah 11-1, Oregon 10-2 / Total wins among the top two 21
SEC (5): L.S.U. 12-0, Georgia 11-1, Florida 10-2, Alabama 10-2, Auburn 9-3 / total wins among the top two 23
B1G (6): Ohio State 12-0, Penn State 10-2, Wisconsin 10-2, Minnesota 10-2, Michigan 9-3, Iowa 9-3 / total wins among the top two 22

This breakdown shows the division in strength between the conferences. Of course lowering the bar makes it look more equal.

Of course if you make the criteria 10-2 or better it breaks down again:
ACC (1)
Bi12 (2)
PAC (2)
SEC (4)
B1G (4)

And for purposes of discussing the Orange Bowl this is where the rubber meets the road. Since Clemson will be in the CFP that leaves the Orange Bowl sucking wind!

Silly argument just for argument's sake. Back in my day 8 wins was considered the cut-off for a "good" season.

Why not make it 11-1?
ACC (1)
Bi12 (2)
PAC (1)
SEC (2)
B1G (1)
I'll tell you why - because 10-2 makes the SEC look better! (and here I've been defending Auburn in other threads, too!)

Just for fun, let's make the cut-off 6-6, shall we?
ACC (10)
Bi12 (6)
PAC (7)
SEC (10)
B1G (9)

(12-02-2019 09:04 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 04:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-01-2019 08:01 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  It was a down year for the ACC, but this on-going rhetoric of "awful" is going too far. Many ACC teams started the season with a loss thanks to playing conference games in the first couple of weeks in support of the launch of the ACC Network. Meanwhile, teams in other conferences were getting fat off of cupcake wins. So when conference play began in earnest, those teams had zero or one loss and were ranked. Now that the season is over and everyone has played their full conference schedule, the picture is a bit different...

P5 Teams with 8-4 record or better:
ACC (4): Clemson, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
Big XII (4): Oklahoma, Baylor, Oklahoma St, Kansas St
Big Ten (7): Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana
Pac-12 (3): Oregon, Utah, USC
SEC (5): Georgia, Florida, LSU, Alabama, Auburn
Independent (1): Notre Dame

Total P5 teams with fewer than 5 losses: 24

source: https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2019/...12119.html

The Big Ten has great depth this year, but the rest are about equal in terms of depth (not trying to compare Auburn to Wake Forest here, but the NUMBER of teams is comparable in every P5 league not named Big Ten). Would I have liked to see more 10-win teams in the ACC? SURE! But 9-3 and 8-4 isn't exactly trash...

Make 9-3 or better the parameters and watch just how different the rest become. You should have majored in propaganda. I've never seen a poster anywhere that finagles the numbers any better than you do in the effort to make their conference look better by comparison.

At 9-3 it breaks down like this:
ACC (2): Clemson 12-0, Virginia 9-3 / Total wins among the top two 21
B12 (2): Oklahoma 11-1, Baylor 11-1 / Total wins among the top two 22
PAC (2): Utah 11-1, Oregon 10-2 / Total wins among the top two 21
SEC (5): L.S.U. 12-0, Georgia 11-1, Florida 10-2, Alabama 10-2, Auburn 9-3 / total wins among the top two 23
B1G (6): Ohio State 12-0, Penn State 10-2, Wisconsin 10-2, Minnesota 10-2, Michigan 9-3, Iowa 9-3 / total wins among the top two 22

This breakdown shows the division in strength between the conferences. Of course lowering the bar makes it look more equal.

Of course if you make the criteria 10-2 or better it breaks down again:
ACC (1)
Bi12 (2)
PAC (2)
SEC (4)
B1G (4)

And for purposes of discussing the Orange Bowl this is where the rubber meets the road. Since Clemson will be in the CFP that leaves the Orange Bowl sucking wind!

Silly argument just for argument's sake. Back in my day 8 wins was considered the cut-off for a "good" season.

Why not make it 11-1?
ACC (1)
Bi12 (2)
PAC (1)
SEC (2)
B1G (1)
I'll tell you why - because 10-2 makes the SEC look better! (and here I've been defending Auburn in other threads, too!)

Just for fun, let's make the cut-off 6-6, shall we?
ACC (10)
Bi12 (6)
PAC (7)
SEC (10)
B1G (9)

The discussion is over a top paying bowl and who it is they might have playing in it. A four loss team is more Music City quality than Orange quality, wouldn't you agree? And Notre Dame can't be part of the conversation because they keep their bowl revenue and the ACC would be screwed.

And there you have it on a platter. If Virginia is the representative at least they only have 3 losses, the ACC gets paid, the ACC schools get paid, and while the Orange Bowl people may not like it, it's what they bargained for. End of story. If Virginia plays a 10-2 school then great. That's probably as good as it's going to get for the Orange this year.

Here’s what I believe would be a fair change the next time the OB contract is up for renewal:

If the ACC champ is taken by the CFP and Notre Dame has 1 or more wins than the next available ACC team, then the OB can take Notre Dame in lieu of an ACC selection.

The ACC champ will always get either the CFP or OB: win for the ACC
The OB won’t necessarily get stuck with lack luster ACC runner ups: win for the OB

(12-03-2019 08:46 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Here’s what I believe would be a fair change the next time the OB contract is up for renewal:

If the ACC champ is taken by the CFP and Notre Dame has 1 or more wins than the next available ACC team, then the OB can take Notre Dame in lieu of an ACC selection.

The ACC champ will always get either the CFP or OB: win for the ACC
The OB won’t necessarily get stuck with lack luster ACC runner ups: win for the OB

Would the Big Ten and Pac-12 ever agree to that for the Rose Bowl? Would the SEC and Big 12 ever agree to that for the Sugar Bowl? Of course they wouldn't! As a result, why would the ACC ever agree to that for the Orange Bowl? Once again, it's the ACC with the leverage here - they're the ones that can take their bowl contract somewhere else and potentially leave the Orange Bowl out of the CFP system entirely. I'm not even an ACC guy and I don't understand why the ACC should be taking a worse contract bowl arrangement compared to all of the other P5 leagues.

At the same time, weak years can happen for conferences... which is why they want those contract bowls in the first place. The ACC doesn't need the Orange Bowl guarantee for years when they have multiple teams that would have otherwise qualified for CFP at-large bids. Instead, they need the Orange Bowl guarantee for years *exactly* like this season. That's the whole point of having a contract bowl!

I understand the fan-based desire to get some better bowl matchups, but asking one P5 conference to unilaterally disarm itself while the other P5 conferences can stand pat is not going to happen. I've said this many times before on this board: guarantees, guarantees, guarantees. *That* is power in college football. A 99% chance for a bowl slot is NOT the same as a 100% guarantee for that same bowl slot... and it's not even close. That last 1% is what separates the ACC from the AAC and determines the entire power structure for college sports.

(12-04-2019 09:25 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-03-2019 08:46 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Here’s what I believe would be a fair change the next time the OB contract is up for renewal:

If the ACC champ is taken by the CFP and Notre Dame has 1 or more wins than the next available ACC team, then the OB can take Notre Dame in lieu of an ACC selection.

The ACC champ will always get either the CFP or OB: win for the ACC
The OB won’t necessarily get stuck with lack luster ACC runner ups: win for the OB

Would the Big Ten and Pac-12 ever agree to that for the Rose Bowl? Would the SEC and Big 12 ever agree to that for the Sugar Bowl? Of course they wouldn't! As a result, why would the ACC ever agree to that for the Orange Bowl? Once again, it's the ACC with the leverage here - they're the ones that can take their bowl contract somewhere else and potentially leave the Orange Bowl out of the CFP system entirely. I'm not even an ACC guy and I don't understand why the ACC should be taking a worse contract bowl arrangement compared to all of the other P5 leagues.

I'm not sure the ACC has that much leverage. The existing contract is already clearly worse than the arrangement with other P5 leagues. The other P5 leagues all get $40 million each for the Sugar and Rose arrangements. The ACC gets $27.5m for the Orange Bowl, and that is no more than the SEC and B1G get for sending their second-place team to the Orange Bowl to face them.

So I submit that the ACC needs the OB as much as vice-versa. What bowl is the ACC going to take its contract to? The Cure Bowl? Nothing with the prestige of the Orange Bowl.

I seriously doubt that the OB ever thought that it might be put in this position of having to accept an unranked team from the ACC. So maybe next time, they can negotiate that say Notre Dame can take the ACC spot in the OB if the ACC team is unranked, and is not the ACC champion. And with the money still going to the ACC.

FWIW, I think the CFP saw the problem too. They moved Florida ahead of Penn State in the latest CFP rankings for not much reason. But crucially, that means Florida, not Penn State, is now positioned to be the Orange Bowl team.

I think the CFP sees that the OB is going to be stuck with a bad ACC team, and even though Penn State is a big brand name, for geographic reasons they won't bring as many fans to the Orange Bowl as will Florida.

(12-04-2019 09:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 09:25 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-03-2019 08:46 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Here’s what I believe would be a fair change the next time the OB contract is up for renewal:

If the ACC champ is taken by the CFP and Notre Dame has 1 or more wins than the next available ACC team, then the OB can take Notre Dame in lieu of an ACC selection.

The ACC champ will always get either the CFP or OB: win for the ACC
The OB won’t necessarily get stuck with lack luster ACC runner ups: win for the OB

Would the Big Ten and Pac-12 ever agree to that for the Rose Bowl? Would the SEC and Big 12 ever agree to that for the Sugar Bowl? Of course they wouldn't! As a result, why would the ACC ever agree to that for the Orange Bowl? Once again, it's the ACC with the leverage here - they're the ones that can take their bowl contract somewhere else and potentially leave the Orange Bowl out of the CFP system entirely. I'm not even an ACC guy and I don't understand why the ACC should be taking a worse contract bowl arrangement compared to all of the other P5 leagues.

I'm not sure the ACC has that much leverage. The existing contract is already clearly worse than the arrangement with other P5 leagues. The other P5 leagues all get $40 million each for the Sugar and Rose arrangements. The ACC gets $27.5m for the Orange Bowl, and that is no more than the SEC and B1G get for sending their second-place team to the Orange Bowl to face them.

So I submit that the ACC needs the OB as much as vice-versa. What bowl is the ACC going to take its contract to? The Cure Bowl? Nothing with the prestige of the Orange Bowl.

I seriously doubt that the OB ever thought that it might be put in this position of having to accept an unranked team from the ACC. So maybe next time, they can negotiate that say Notre Dame can take the ACC spot in the OB if the ACC team is unranked, and is not the ACC champion. And with the money still going to the ACC.

FWIW, I think the CFP saw the problem too. They moved Florida ahead of Penn State in the latest CFP rankings for not much reason. But crucially, that means Florida, not Penn State, is now positioned to be the Orange Bowl team.

I think the CFP sees that the OB is going to be stuck with a bad ACC team, and even though Penn State is a big brand name, for geographic reasons they won't bring as many fans to the Orange Bowl as will Florida.

The Peach Bowl would certainly trade spots with the Orange Bowl in a heartbeat. The Citrus Bowl and Outback Bowl would both love to get into the CFP system, as well. As much as the Orange Bowl might not love a not-so-hot UVA team this season, they *definitely* don't want to deal with the "riff raff" of a G5 team like the access bowls need to deal with.

Most importantly, the ACC has the power to *automatically* bring a bowl into the CFP system simply by contract. Let's not fool ourselves - the ACC isn't going to get left out of the CFP system, so who they choose to have as its contract bowl is going to get the automatic New Years Six slot and all of the benefits (such as being part of the national semifinal playoff rotation) that comes with it. All other bowls are going to be subject to having to bid for CFP slots separately and they aren't guaranteed. The Fiesta, Peach and Cotton Bowls all have to continuously hustle to keep their CFP berths in a way that the Rose, Sugar and Orange Bowls don't have to, so the ACC is conferring a huge benefit to the Orange on that front.

Therefore, the ACC has significantly more leverage here. They can tell the Orange Bowl, "If you don't like teams such as UVA, we'll take our bid to the Peach/Citrus/Outback Bowl and you can fight with a bunch of other bowls for the right to take a G5 team every 3 years instead. Atlanta, Orlando and Tampa would all be happy to have us." That will kill off any negative thoughts from Orange Bowl about UVA very quickly.

Based on the CFP rankings last night it seems pretty clear that the Orange Bowl will be Virginia vs. Florida regardless of the outcome of the ACC CG, given Alabama's huge drop. I don't understand everyone getting the vapors about the ACC and the Orange Bowl. Is anyone complaining that Wisconsin and Oregon, the likely Rose Bowl teams, will each probably have three losses, including dropping games to mediocre teams like Illinois or Arizona State, respectively? Or that the likely SEC rep in the Sugar Bowl will have lost to a 4-8 South Carolina team? To think that the non-playoff games are, or should, be based on some sort of meritocracy ignores the fact that the P5 conferences have contracts with the New Year's 6 games specifically to ensure that their top teams who don't make the playoff get the exposure that comes with those games without having to worry about having their spots snagged by more 'deserving' teams.

(12-04-2019 10:02 AM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  Based on the CFP rankings last night it seems pretty clear that the Orange Bowl will be Virginia vs. Florida regardless of the outcome of the ACC CG, given Alabama's huge drop. I don't understand everyone getting the vapors about the ACC and the Orange Bowl. Is anyone complaining that Wisconsin and Oregon, the likely Rose Bowl teams, will each probably have three losses, including dropping games to mediocre teams like Illinois or Arizona State, respectively? Or that the likely SEC rep in the Sugar Bowl will have lost to a 4-8 South Carolina team?

Those concerns are qualitatively different than an *unranked* team playing in an NY6 bowl. Can't remember the last time that happened?

(12-04-2019 10:02 AM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  Based on the CFP rankings last night it seems pretty clear that the Orange Bowl will be Virginia vs. Florida regardless of the outcome of the ACC CG, given Alabama's huge drop. I don't understand everyone getting the vapors about the ACC and the Orange Bowl. Is anyone complaining that Wisconsin and Oregon, the likely Rose Bowl teams, will each probably have three losses, including dropping games to mediocre teams like Illinois or Arizona State, respectively? Or that the likely SEC rep in the Sugar Bowl will have lost to a 4-8 South Carolina team? To think that the non-playoff games are, or should, be based on some sort of meritocracy ignores the fact that the P5 conferences have contracts with the New Year's 6 games specifically to ensure that their top teams who don't make the playoff get the exposure that comes with those games without having to worry about having their spots snagged by more 'deserving' teams.

The really interesting scenario now would be if Georgia beats LSU and both make the playoff. Florida then is Sugar bound. And Penn St would be stuck in the Orange.

For those that say the Peach would trade places with the Orange-
Peach Bowl last 5 years-
TCU vs Ole Miss
Houston vs Florida St
Alabama vs Washington
UCF vs Auburn
Florida vs Michigan

Orange Bowl last 5 years-
Ga Tech vs Miss St
Clemson vs Oklahoma
Florida St vs Michigan
Wisconsin vs Miami
Alabama vs Oklahoma

Sorry but I really don't think the Peach would automatically. They're going to either get Ohio St or a great Clemson/LSU game. Had a SEC team every year but once.

(12-04-2019 09:53 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 09:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 09:25 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-03-2019 08:46 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Here’s what I believe would be a fair change the next time the OB contract is up for renewal:

If the ACC champ is taken by the CFP and Notre Dame has 1 or more wins than the next available ACC team, then the OB can take Notre Dame in lieu of an ACC selection.

The ACC champ will always get either the CFP or OB: win for the ACC
The OB won’t necessarily get stuck with lack luster ACC runner ups: win for the OB

Would the Big Ten and Pac-12 ever agree to that for the Rose Bowl? Would the SEC and Big 12 ever agree to that for the Sugar Bowl? Of course they wouldn't! As a result, why would the ACC ever agree to that for the Orange Bowl? Once again, it's the ACC with the leverage here - they're the ones that can take their bowl contract somewhere else and potentially leave the Orange Bowl out of the CFP system entirely. I'm not even an ACC guy and I don't understand why the ACC should be taking a worse contract bowl arrangement compared to all of the other P5 leagues.

I'm not sure the ACC has that much leverage. The existing contract is already clearly worse than the arrangement with other P5 leagues. The other P5 leagues all get $40 million each for the Sugar and Rose arrangements. The ACC gets $27.5m for the Orange Bowl, and that is no more than the SEC and B1G get for sending their second-place team to the Orange Bowl to face them.

So I submit that the ACC needs the OB as much as vice-versa. What bowl is the ACC going to take its contract to? The Cure Bowl? Nothing with the prestige of the Orange Bowl.

I seriously doubt that the OB ever thought that it might be put in this position of having to accept an unranked team from the ACC. So maybe next time, they can negotiate that say Notre Dame can take the ACC spot in the OB if the ACC team is unranked, and is not the ACC champion. And with the money still going to the ACC.

FWIW, I think the CFP saw the problem too. They moved Florida ahead of Penn State in the latest CFP rankings for not much reason. But crucially, that means Florida, not Penn State, is now positioned to be the Orange Bowl team.

I think the CFP sees that the OB is going to be stuck with a bad ACC team, and even though Penn State is a big brand name, for geographic reasons they won't bring as many fans to the Orange Bowl as will Florida.

The Peach Bowl would certainly trade spots with the Orange Bowl in a heartbeat. The Citrus Bowl and Outback Bowl would both love to get into the CFP system, as well. As much as the Orange Bowl might not love a not-so-hot UVA team this season, they *definitely* don't want to deal with the "riff raff" of a G5 team like the access bowls need to deal with.

No question. The OB suffered greatly in the late 2000s, when its Big East and ACC contracts stuck it Wake Forest vs Cincinnati type matchups. It wanted to avoid that at all costs - that's a big reason it signed with the B1G and SEC too.

And it *thought* it did .... but now we have a return of the undead situation with UVA. So maybe fresh thinking is needed to avoid in the future.

Remember, the *current value* of the second-place SEC and B1G teams is equal, in the OB contract, to the first choice of the ACC. The OB could just jettison the ACC and sign a deal for the #2 teams in the SEC and B1G, with Notre Dame in the mix, for basically the same value.

Exactly. I just dont believe the ACC with its subpar payout in comparison to the other conferences is in complete control. The Orange Bowl has a much higher payout than the Peach so yes the ACC could switch but they would likely take a major financial hit.

What is to prevent the Orange Bowl from offering the CFP next contract the same money they payout now for the next two highest teams after the CFP in non semifinal years? I still think it would be wise for the ACC to work with the Orange Bowl and get Notre Dame in THIS YEAR only while keeping the payout structure the same as if UVA went to Orange and Notre Dame went to Camping World. It should be very doable

(12-04-2019 10:35 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Exactly. I just dont believe the ACC with its subpar payout in comparison to the other conferences is in complete control. The Orange Bowl has a much higher payout than the Peach so yes the ACC could switch but they would likely take a major financial hit.

What is to prevent the Orange Bowl from offering the CFP next contract the same money they payout now for the next two highest teams after the CFP in non semifinal years? I still think it would be wise for the ACC to work with the Orange Bowl and get Notre Dame in THIS YEAR only while keeping the payout structure the same as if UVA went to Orange and Notre Dame went to Camping World. It should be very doable

This is like arguing that the cart is pulling the horse. The Peach Bowl payout is lower today because it's *not* a contract bowl. The entire bargain of becoming a contract bowl is that the payout would need to be raised to that level. The point is that the Peach Bowl (or Citrus Bowl or Outback Bowl) would gladly pay the same or more than the current Orange Bowl payout to the ACC.

Once again, the value of being a contract bowl isn't just having a tie-in with the ACC. It also means that they are guaranteed a CFP semifinal every 3 years without having to continuously fight for that position in the way that the access bowls need to do so today. *That* is why the ACC tie-in is valuable in a unique way.

(12-04-2019 10:47 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 10:35 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Exactly. I just dont believe the ACC with its subpar payout in comparison to the other conferences is in complete control. The Orange Bowl has a much higher payout than the Peach so yes the ACC could switch but they would likely take a major financial hit.

What is to prevent the Orange Bowl from offering the CFP next contract the same money they payout now for the next two highest teams after the CFP in non semifinal years? I still think it would be wise for the ACC to work with the Orange Bowl and get Notre Dame in THIS YEAR only while keeping the payout structure the same as if UVA went to Orange and Notre Dame went to Camping World. It should be very doable

This is like arguing that the cart is pulling the horse. The Peach Bowl payout is lower today because it's *not* a contract bowl. The entire bargain of becoming a contract bowl is that the payout would need to be raised to that level. The point is that the Peach Bowl (or Citrus Bowl or Outback Bowl) would gladly pay the same or more than the current Orange Bowl payout to the ACC.

Once again, the value of being a contract bowl isn't just having a tie-in with the ACC. It also means that they are guaranteed a CFP semifinal every 3 years without having to continuously fight for that position in the way that the access bowls need to do so today. *That* is why the ACC tie-in is valuable in a unique way.

I think realistically though- the Peach, Cotton, and Fiesta bowls are not going anywhere.. They are going to host a CFP SF every 3 years.

(12-04-2019 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 10:02 AM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  Based on the CFP rankings last night it seems pretty clear that the Orange Bowl will be Virginia vs. Florida regardless of the outcome of the ACC CG, given Alabama's huge drop. I don't understand everyone getting the vapors about the ACC and the Orange Bowl. Is anyone complaining that Wisconsin and Oregon, the likely Rose Bowl teams, will each probably have three losses, including dropping games to mediocre teams like Illinois or Arizona State, respectively? Or that the likely SEC rep in the Sugar Bowl will have lost to a 4-8 South Carolina team?

Those concerns are qualitatively different than an *unranked* team playing in an NY6 bowl. Can't remember the last time that happened?

UConn in the BCS-era Fiesta Bowl? In any event, UVA is ranked #23 as of last night and I doubt the committee would drop them out of the top 25 altogether even if they lose to Clemson by 4+ touchdown spread precisely because they’ll want a matchup of ranked teams in the Orange Bowl.

(12-04-2019 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 10:02 AM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  Based on the CFP rankings last night it seems pretty clear that the Orange Bowl will be Virginia vs. Florida regardless of the outcome of the ACC CG, given Alabama's huge drop. I don't understand everyone getting the vapors about the ACC and the Orange Bowl. Is anyone complaining that Wisconsin and Oregon, the likely Rose Bowl teams, will each probably have three losses, including dropping games to mediocre teams like Illinois or Arizona State, respectively? Or that the likely SEC rep in the Sugar Bowl will have lost to a 4-8 South Carolina team?

Those concerns are qualitatively different than an *unranked* team playing in an NY6 bowl. Can't remember the last time that happened?

This was under the BCS system, but 2012 Wisconsin went to the Rose Bowl as an unranked Big Ten champ.

If the Rose Bowl came up to the Big Ten that year with the proposals that are being batted around regarding the Orange Bowl and ACC, the Big Ten would have told them to *F**k off", show them a long list of other bowls that would happily take an unranked Big Ten champ for even more money, and that would have been the end of it... and that's the Rose Bowl. I would expect the ACC to have a similar reaction.

Putting this aside, absolutely no one wants this type of precedent. If UVA could be knocked out of the Orange Bowl with some type of discretionary change, then what's next? Downgrading a Wake Forest team that wins the ACC Championship but doesn't have as many traveling fans? Is a team that's ranked #25 fine in a way that a team ranked #26 isn't? That's the type of slippery slope that the P5 leagues want to avoid in the first place and why they explicitly sign these guaranteed spots in contract bowls.

Once again: guarantees, guarantees, guarantees. The 100% guarantee regardless of how crappy the team that you provide is what makes you a power conference! I think too many fans mistakenly think that "majority of the time by merit" is satisfactory to the powers that be compared to "100% of the time by contract" and that couldn't be further from the truth.