So assuming this all ends up happening as speculated, lots is going to change

But it occurred to me that the tie in the SEC has with the L10 like the Sugar Bowl have zero appeal anymore and will terminate them and replace the L10 with a P4 conference opponent

My guess is the ACC as first choice to compliment the B1G in the Citrus Bowl or possibly the PAC since the SEC and PAC don’t really have a major bowl deal together yet and this would provide that opening

I could even see the Cotton Bowl ending its relationship with the B12 and becoming the SEC vs PAC major bowl game

Lots of other Bowl deals will likely have to get reworked as well in conjunction with the playoff

Indefinitely see the Sugar Bowl making a move to secure the ACC as well.

Cotton as a PAC vs SEC bowl makes sense especially if Tech is on the table for the PAC.

I think you are right that the Sugar might become an ACC matchup, but I can't imagine the Orange losing the ACC 1.

(07-25-2021 12:34 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  Cotton as a PAC vs SEC bowl makes sense especially if Tech is on the table for the PAC.

I think you are right that the Sugar might become an ACC matchup, but I can't imagine the Orange losing the ACC 1.

Sugar will be SEC 3 or 4 most years so matching against ACC 2, 3 or 4 is likely okay.

The Pac-12 would be a hard geographic sell as it's a far distance from California/West to New Orleans. Their #1 is off limits, at best you'll get their #2. Would a lot of USC fans travel from LA to New Orleans for a bowl game if they didn't win the Pac 12? You wouldn't get the Big 10 #1 either but their schools are closer and more popular. You could also try for the ACC #1 choice knowing you will almost never get Clemson unless they have a bad year and they will treat it like a consolation bowl but you might wind up with a decent Miami or if they get their act together Florida State. Would the ACC abandon the Orange Bowl for a chance at the SEC in the Sugar knowing that the SEC champion has never played in the Sugar Bowl in CFP history? If the ACC champ stays with the Orange Bowl and the Sugar has to take a 2nd choice, I would take the Big Ten but of course I'm biased.

I wouldn’t be surprised if we see the SEC torpedo the CFP and usher a return to bowls and polls.

I say this because the CFP model results in revenue sharing. A return to bowls and polls would mean the SEC could wrap up tie in with multiple major bowls—Sugar, Cotton, Orange, Peach, Citrus, Alamo, Gator, etc. — and not have to share it.

Maybe we see a plus one develop, where the SEC keeps all their own bowl money, and it’s only the National Championship, whose participants are chosen after the bowls are played, are shared in any way.

Fiesta should contract PAC #2 vs SEC #3/4

ACC can keep B1G/SEC tie-in for the Orange as it is now. B1G #3, SEC #4/5, or ND.

Sugar can be B1G vs SEC. B1G 2 vs SEC 3/4.

(07-25-2021 12:42 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Fiesta should contract PAC #2 vs SEC #3/4

ACC can keep B1G/SEC tie-in for the Orange as it is now. B1G #3, SEC #4/5, or ND.

Sugar can be B1G vs SEC. B1G 2 vs SEC 3/4.

Why would the SEC have any interest in going to Phoenix? They have plenty of bowls in their area, especially after adding the University of Texas and all of the Texas bowls including the Cotton and Alamo become good destinations.

Maybe the MWC could send their champ to the Fiesta. They're probably the only other conference outside of the Pac-12 that would want to go to the desert.

ACC should replace the Big XII once their contract ends so ACC 1 vs SEC 1 and the Orange should update to ACC 2 vs B1G 2. I also wouldn't be surprised to see the Fiesta get an auto PAC team the Cotton\Peach getting an Auto SEC in making it that each major conference gets two auto NY6 games

(07-25-2021 12:42 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I wouldn’t be surprised if we see the SEC torpedo the CFP and usher a return to bowls and polls.

I say this because the CFP model results in revenue sharing. A return to bowls and polls would mean the SEC could wrap up tie in with multiple major bowls—Sugar, Cotton, Orange, Peach, Citrus, Alamo, Gator, etc. — and not have to share it.

Maybe we see a plus one develop, where the SEC keeps all their own bowl money, and it’s only the National Championship, whose participants are chosen after the bowls are played, are shared in any way.

I wouldn't be surprised either. In a 12 team CFP, it's not unreasonable to think the SEC might get four of the bids most years. But even if they do, they'll be sharing a lot of their potential revenue with a lot of other schools.

With a 16 team conference, they might see much greater value in having a CC tournament rather than a single game, in which they get to keep all the revenue. That would likely scuttle the possibility of having CFP games before (very) late December at the earliest, which doesn't fit well with a tournament that would take place over four weeks.

The B1G might see things the same way, even though I don't believe their CCG is as lucrative as the SEC's. They could be an ally in reflecting the subcommittee's recommendation. Such CCT's would argue strongly in favor of keeping the four team CFP model we have now.

(07-25-2021 12:29 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  So assuming this all ends up happening as speculated, lots is going to change

But it occurred to me that the tie in the SEC has with the L10 like the Sugar Bowl have zero appeal anymore and will terminate them and replace the L10 with a P4 conference opponent

My guess is the ACC as first choice to compliment the B1G in the Citrus Bowl or possibly the PAC since the SEC and PAC don’t really have a major bowl deal together yet and this would provide that opening.

IIRC, the Big 12 has a contract with the Sugar Bowl, so the SEC/Sugar can't just boot them out. They will be in that bowl until 2025.

After that, I suspect the new 12-team CFP will radically alter conference tie-ins with the major bowls, as they will be folded in to the playoffs. So it will be a moot point then.

The SEC will just face whoever is the rump-Big 12 champ the next three years.

And they may never face a rump-Big 12 champ, as we know TX and OU will play in the Big 12 this year at least.

If the Big XII keeps everyone else and remain comfortably ahead of the G5, I don't see why the Fiesta wouldn't want their 1 to pair with the PAC's 2/3, especially if they end up adding BYU and another western-facing school. They're still the best geographic option and if they can staunch the bleeding, they're not going to become CUSA.

If they lose other schools, then all bets are off.

SECWCG in Arlington, SECECG in Atlanta. One month later both champions play in the Sugar Bowl on NYD?

SEC replaces Pac-12 in the Rose?

I could see Sugar going SEC vs. better of either B12 or ACC Champ.

(07-25-2021 12:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-25-2021 12:29 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  So assuming this all ends up happening as speculated, lots is going to change

But it occurred to me that the tie in the SEC has with the L10 like the Sugar Bowl have zero appeal anymore and will terminate them and replace the L10 with a P4 conference opponent

My guess is the ACC as first choice to compliment the B1G in the Citrus Bowl or possibly the PAC since the SEC and PAC don’t really have a major bowl deal together yet and this would provide that opening.

IIRC, the Big 12 has a contract with the Sugar Bowl, so the SEC/Sugar can't just boot them out. They will be in that bowl until 2025.

After that, I suspect the new 12-team CFP will radically alter conference tie-ins with the major bowls, as they will be folded in to the playoffs. So it will be a moot point then.

The SEC will just face whoever is the rump-Big 12 champ the next three years.

And they may never face a rump-Big 12 champ, as we know TX and OU will play in the Big 12 this year at least.

What I’d love to know is if the Bowl games anticipated more realignment and have any kind of out clause if a conferences makeup suddenly changes

(07-25-2021 12:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-25-2021 12:29 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  So assuming this all ends up happening as speculated, lots is going to change

But it occurred to me that the tie in the SEC has with the L10 like the Sugar Bowl have zero appeal anymore and will terminate them and replace the L10 with a P4 conference opponent

My guess is the ACC as first choice to compliment the B1G in the Citrus Bowl or possibly the PAC since the SEC and PAC don’t really have a major bowl deal together yet and this would provide that opening.

IIRC, the Big 12 has a contract with the Sugar Bowl, so the SEC/Sugar can't just boot them out. They will be in that bowl until 2025.

After that, I suspect the new 12-team CFP will radically alter conference tie-ins with the major bowls, as they will be folded in to the playoffs. So it will be a moot point then.

The SEC will just face whoever is the rump-Big 12 champ the next three years.

And they may never face a rump-Big 12 champ, as we know TX and OU will play in the Big 12 this year at least.

You don’t think the Sugar Bowl and/or the SEC would have legal grounds to void the deal due to the change in membership composition?

(07-25-2021 12:42 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I wouldn’t be surprised if we see the SEC torpedo the CFP and usher a return to bowls and polls.

I say this because the CFP model results in revenue sharing. A return to bowls and polls would mean the SEC could wrap up tie in with multiple major bowls—Sugar, Cotton, Orange, Peach, Citrus, Alamo, Gator, etc. — and not have to share it.

Maybe we see a plus one develop, where the SEC keeps all their own bowl money, and it’s only the National Championship, whose participants are chosen after the bowls are played, are shared in any way.

I’ve seen this suggested elsewhere and it honestly makes no sense.

Sankey himself was the one that spearheaded the 12-team playoff proposal and he was negotiating with UT and OU for a good portion of that time. Why would the SEC tank a playoff proposal of their creation AND they knew that UT and OU would likely be coming in the midst of that creation? That just doesn’t track with me.

More at-large bids become WAY more important to the SEC when you add in UT and OU to the league. With the concentration of elite programs in the SEC, virtually every game on their conference schedule will now have playoff implications (which drives up the value of their conference TV package even if there’s more playoff revenue sharing). Plus, Sankey is solidifying his stature in taking the place of Jim Delany as college sports’ ultimate power broker: he’s instituting a new playoff system AND having the most valuable conference expansion in modern history within the span of a month.

Maybe a different way of looking at the OP question: does the “top 4 conference champs get byes” proposal now become the SEC, Big Ten, Pac-12 and ACC champs getting automatic byes and all with conference tie-ins (such as the Sugar always getting the SEC champ, etc.)? That addresses the Rose Bowl issue with the Big Ten and Pac-12. Everything else about the playoff proposal would effective stay the same (where the next 2 highest ranked conference champs plus 6 at-larges would play in the first round. It also addresses the power leagues maintaining their *guaranteed structural* advantage over everyone else.

This agreement only runs through 2025, the earliest I imagine that OU & Texas could officially join the SEC would be in 2023 so that would leave 2 years under the current format where the SEC would have a game against the powered down B12 since 1 of those 3 seasons would be a semi final. Could be even less if a playoff expansion is installed early but if not I don't think having 2 seasons of having to play a OU/Texas less B12 team would be worth the time/effort of the SEC to cancel the current agreement.

WATTBA!!!

I imagine a lot of the aq bowls will become playoff games.

(07-25-2021 02:27 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  I imagine a lot of the aq bowls will become playoff games.

This right here.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk