(09-29-2021 07:33 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-28-2021 10:32 PM)VCE Wrote:  It would be nice to break the ESPN monopoly on the weekly playoff committee rankings.

I’d be wary that you add one or two extra network voices to the crowd shouting down an access slot. Talking about “the little guy” having a chance to prove something is just water cooler talk. The networks want the big schools who bring the big crowds and viewer numbers. You think adding CBS and Fox helps out the G5 cause for access? Heck, the bowls want no part of them as is. CFP committee doesn’t, either. You may see a problem with how to handle an access slot game between the media partners. One network controlling it and maybe being okay with it because they have so much skin in the game already wasn’t a bad thing.

I’m in favor of going back to the pre BCS system, and barring that (since it won’t happen), the current straight four or a straight eight. College football was better 15 years ago than it is today and far better than that 30 years ago.

ESPN is the entity responsible for ruining much of the two important sports. Eff em.

(09-29-2021 07:34 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 02:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 12:41 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 08:59 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Bruce, Bill Hancock said to get going for 2024 decisions need to be made quickly and 2026 they have time.

2023 is not in play.

Great quibble.

There's nothing in the argument that hinges on which year it is before the end of the contract. Any change to the current contract requires agreement by all signatories ... so it IS nothing but a quibble.

There's a 3 year rotation of the bowls, so it gets really difficult if you don't do it in year 10 of the 12 years.

I was looking at the rotation and wondering whether there was something special about ending the CFP4 in the year that the Rose and Sugar Bowls are Semi-finals, rather than stopping it at the end of a full rotation, as most observers had been assuming.

If you don't do the 3 year rotation you have to have some kind of benefit for the ones who only got 3 semi-finals over the 10 years.

(09-29-2021 09:34 PM)VCE Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 07:33 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-28-2021 10:32 PM)VCE Wrote:  It would be nice to break the ESPN monopoly on the weekly playoff committee rankings.

I’d be wary that you add one or two extra network voices to the crowd shouting down an access slot. Talking about “the little guy” having a chance to prove something is just water cooler talk. The networks want the big schools who bring the big crowds and viewer numbers. You think adding CBS and Fox helps out the G5 cause for access? Heck, the bowls want no part of them as is. CFP committee doesn’t, either. You may see a problem with how to handle an access slot game between the media partners. One network controlling it and maybe being okay with it because they have so much skin in the game already wasn’t a bad thing.

I’m in favor of going back to the pre BCS system, and barring that (since it won’t happen), the current straight four or a straight eight. College football was better 15 years ago than it is today and far better than that 30 years ago.

ESPN is the entity responsible for ruining much of the two important sports. Eff em.

15 years ago Texas was the defending national champion, so it was pretty good back then!

B1G, PAC, B12 going to NFL model for media rights come time, smart move. Don't put all your eggs in 1 or 2 baskets. ESPN over played their hand.

(09-29-2021 09:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 09:34 PM)VCE Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 07:33 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-28-2021 10:32 PM)VCE Wrote:  It would be nice to break the ESPN monopoly on the weekly playoff committee rankings.

I’d be wary that you add one or two extra network voices to the crowd shouting down an access slot. Talking about “the little guy” having a chance to prove something is just water cooler talk. The networks want the big schools who bring the big crowds and viewer numbers. You think adding CBS and Fox helps out the G5 cause for access? Heck, the bowls want no part of them as is. CFP committee doesn’t, either. You may see a problem with how to handle an access slot game between the media partners. One network controlling it and maybe being okay with it because they have so much skin in the game already wasn’t a bad thing.

I’m in favor of going back to the pre BCS system, and barring that (since it won’t happen), the current straight four or a straight eight. College football was better 15 years ago than it is today and far better than that 30 years ago.

ESPN is the entity responsible for ruining much of the two important sports. Eff em.

15 years ago Texas was the defending national champion, so it was pretty good back then!

ND football fan here and I wasn’t complaining. That was a hell of a game.

(09-29-2021 09:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 06:54 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(09-28-2021 05:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-28-2021 04:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Interesting item from an article on CFP expansion discussions...

From the beginning of the formation of the Alliance, I have questioned the notion that the prime motivation was to ensure that ESPN did not capture an expanded playoffs at a low-ball figure.

I've never understood why anyone would think that the SEC wouldn't be just as eager to maximize the payout from the playoffs as anyone else, whether that means splitting the package among multiple networks or not.

The Alliance is whatever you want it to be. It can be a scheduling agreement. It can be about splitting the package among multiple networks. It can be about protecting the student-athlete model. It can be about protecting the major bowls, particularly the Rose Bowl. It can be about putting a check on the SEC. It can be about creating a Power 4. What it is not...it is not in writing. It is a Gentleman's Agreement, which can make it highly effective.

I think the Alliance does not happen without George Kliavkoff, the new Pac-12 Commissioner. I think that one of his skills is being able to bring people together, listen to their concerns, collaborate, basically all the skills that Larry Scott lacked. He was talking about the same issues at the Pac-12 Media Day that helped bring the Alliance together:
https://static.pac-12.com/sports/footbal...ullens.pdf

One thing I think the Alliance is committed to is defending the "Collegiate Model".

I think that effort is doomed to fail.

I agree that they are committed to defend the "Collegiate Model." George Kliavkoff addressed that subject at the Pac-12 Media Day:

"With respect to the Austin case recently decided by the Supreme Court. I want to be on the record that we completely agree with the majority's affirmation that college sports is a special and distinct pursuit. As college students our student-athletes should be eligible to receive any and all legitimate educational benefits.

That said, we must continue to defend the collegiate model. It is likely that some will see the decision in Austin and particularly the language of the single concurring opinion as an invitation to attack the very foundation of the collegiate model. College athletes are students at educational institutions. In the case of the Pac-12, at some of the finest universities in the world. Introducing unfettered professional practices into college sports will undermine our educational mission and will have many unintended negative consequences, especially for athletes competing in women's and Olympic sports."

I cannot see schools like Stanford and UCLA, Northwestern and Michigan, and Duke and Virginia, accepting a professional model. I think making predictions are pointless, because no one really knows where this is going. It is going to evolve over the next few years and conferences just need to be prepared for some change.

(09-28-2021 07:20 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-28-2021 05:57 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  

(09-28-2021 04:46 PM)solohawks Wrote:  The Mouse will be sad

Mickey doesn't get sad, it gets aggressive. Trust me, you do not fsck with Mickey Mouse, because he will fsck you so hard, you'll feel lots of pain.

https://youtu.be/4IAj7UxMqiU

too true!!

(09-29-2021 10:21 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 09:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 06:54 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(09-28-2021 05:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-28-2021 04:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Interesting item from an article on CFP expansion discussions...

From the beginning of the formation of the Alliance, I have questioned the notion that the prime motivation was to ensure that ESPN did not capture an expanded playoffs at a low-ball figure.

I've never understood why anyone would think that the SEC wouldn't be just as eager to maximize the payout from the playoffs as anyone else, whether that means splitting the package among multiple networks or not.

The Alliance is whatever you want it to be. It can be a scheduling agreement. It can be about splitting the package among multiple networks. It can be about protecting the student-athlete model. It can be about protecting the major bowls, particularly the Rose Bowl. It can be about putting a check on the SEC. It can be about creating a Power 4. What it is not...it is not in writing. It is a Gentleman's Agreement, which can make it highly effective.

I think the Alliance does not happen without George Kliavkoff, the new Pac-12 Commissioner. I think that one of his skills is being able to bring people together, listen to their concerns, collaborate, basically all the skills that Larry Scott lacked. He was talking about the same issues at the Pac-12 Media Day that helped bring the Alliance together:
https://static.pac-12.com/sports/footbal...ullens.pdf

One thing I think the Alliance is committed to is defending the "Collegiate Model".

I think that effort is doomed to fail.

I agree that they are committed to defend the "Collegiate Model." George Kliavkoff addressed that subject at the Pac-12 Media Day:

"With respect to the Austin case recently decided by the Supreme Court. I want to be on the record that we completely agree with the majority's affirmation that college sports is a special and distinct pursuit. As college students our student-athletes should be eligible to receive any and all legitimate educational benefits.

That said, we must continue to defend the collegiate model. It is likely that some will see the decision in Austin and particularly the language of the single concurring opinion as an invitation to attack the very foundation of the collegiate model. College athletes are students at educational institutions. In the case of the Pac-12, at some of the finest universities in the world. Introducing unfettered professional practices into college sports will undermine our educational mission and will have many unintended negative consequences, especially for athletes competing in women's and Olympic sports."

I cannot see schools like Stanford and UCLA, Northwestern and Michigan, and Duke and Virginia, accepting a professional model. I think making predictions are pointless, because no one really knows where this is going. It is going to evolve over the next few years and conferences just need to be prepared for some change.

Take a look around you, specifically at the different lawsuits being launched by college athletes against colleges/universities, and the NCAA. The athletes are not dumb. They see these coaches sign these huge mega deals, only to leave for the next mega deal. They see how much $$ these athletic departments are raking in with all of these conference realignment moves. They want in on the action as well!!! And this isn't just at the FBS level, dbackjon and ccd, and Iwokeuplikethis!!!!! This is at the Division 2 level as well!!!! Let that soak in your minds for awhile!!! Whether or not Stanford, UCLA, Northwestern, Michigan, Virginia, and/or Duke want to accept the professional model, they have no choice!!!
The chickens are coming back home to roost.

(09-29-2021 10:56 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 10:21 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 09:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 06:54 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(09-28-2021 05:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  From the beginning of the formation of the Alliance, I have questioned the notion that the prime motivation was to ensure that ESPN did not capture an expanded playoffs at a low-ball figure.

I've never understood why anyone would think that the SEC wouldn't be just as eager to maximize the payout from the playoffs as anyone else, whether that means splitting the package among multiple networks or not.

The Alliance is whatever you want it to be. It can be a scheduling agreement. It can be about splitting the package among multiple networks. It can be about protecting the student-athlete model. It can be about protecting the major bowls, particularly the Rose Bowl. It can be about putting a check on the SEC. It can be about creating a Power 4. What it is not...it is not in writing. It is a Gentleman's Agreement, which can make it highly effective.

I think the Alliance does not happen without George Kliavkoff, the new Pac-12 Commissioner. I think that one of his skills is being able to bring people together, listen to their concerns, collaborate, basically all the skills that Larry Scott lacked. He was talking about the same issues at the Pac-12 Media Day that helped bring the Alliance together:
https://static.pac-12.com/sports/footbal...ullens.pdf

One thing I think the Alliance is committed to is defending the "Collegiate Model".

I think that effort is doomed to fail.

I agree that they are committed to defend the "Collegiate Model." George Kliavkoff addressed that subject at the Pac-12 Media Day:

"With respect to the Austin case recently decided by the Supreme Court. I want to be on the record that we completely agree with the majority's affirmation that college sports is a special and distinct pursuit. As college students our student-athletes should be eligible to receive any and all legitimate educational benefits.

That said, we must continue to defend the collegiate model. It is likely that some will see the decision in Austin and particularly the language of the single concurring opinion as an invitation to attack the very foundation of the collegiate model. College athletes are students at educational institutions. In the case of the Pac-12, at some of the finest universities in the world. Introducing unfettered professional practices into college sports will undermine our educational mission and will have many unintended negative consequences, especially for athletes competing in women's and Olympic sports."

I cannot see schools like Stanford and UCLA, Northwestern and Michigan, and Duke and Virginia, accepting a professional model. I think making predictions are pointless, because no one really knows where this is going. It is going to evolve over the next few years and conferences just need to be prepared for some change.

Take a look around you, specifically at the different lawsuits being launched by college athletes against colleges/universities, and the NCAA. The athletes are not dumb. They see these coaches sign these huge mega deals, only to leave for the next mega deal. They see how much $$ these athletic departments are raking in with all of these conference realignment moves. They want in on the action as well!!! And this isn't just at the FBS level, dbackjon and ccd, and Iwokeuplikethis!!!!! This is at the Division 2 level as well!!!! Let that soak in your minds for awhile!!! Whether or not Stanford, UCLA, Northwestern, Michigan, Virginia, and/or Duke want to accept the professional model, they have no choice!!!
The chickens are coming back home to roost.

This isn’t being driven by “not dumb” athletes, but by handlers.

(09-28-2021 07:20 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-28-2021 05:57 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  

(09-28-2021 04:46 PM)solohawks Wrote:  The Mouse will be sad

Mickey doesn't get sad, it gets aggressive. Trust me, you do not fsck with Mickey Mouse, because he will fsck you so hard, you'll feel lots of pain.

https://youtu.be/4IAj7UxMqiU

Lmao

(09-29-2021 09:34 PM)VCE Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 07:33 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-28-2021 10:32 PM)VCE Wrote:  It would be nice to break the ESPN monopoly on the weekly playoff committee rankings.

I’d be wary that you add one or two extra network voices to the crowd shouting down an access slot. Talking about “the little guy” having a chance to prove something is just water cooler talk. The networks want the big schools who bring the big crowds and viewer numbers. You think adding CBS and Fox helps out the G5 cause for access? Heck, the bowls want no part of them as is. CFP committee doesn’t, either. You may see a problem with how to handle an access slot game between the media partners. One network controlling it and maybe being okay with it because they have so much skin in the game already wasn’t a bad thing.

I’m in favor of going back to the pre BCS system, and barring that (since it won’t happen), the current straight four or a straight eight. College football was better 15 years ago than it is today and far better than that 30 years ago.

ESPN is the entity responsible for ruining much of the two important sports. Eff em.

I would be very happy going back to the pre-BCS "bowl and poll" system too.

But the one way CFB is IMO *way* better now than 30 years ago is the profusion of games that are available on TV today compared to then. That's totally awesome, and ESPN has had a big hand in that, which I thank them for.

(09-29-2021 09:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 07:34 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 02:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 12:41 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 08:59 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Bruce, Bill Hancock said to get going for 2024 decisions need to be made quickly and 2026 they have time.

2023 is not in play.

Great quibble.

There's nothing in the argument that hinges on which year it is before the end of the contract. Any change to the current contract requires agreement by all signatories ... so it IS nothing but a quibble.

There's a 3 year rotation of the bowls, so it gets really difficult if you don't do it in year 10 of the 12 years.

I was looking at the rotation and wondering whether there was something special about ending the CFP4 in the year that the Rose and Sugar Bowls are Semi-finals, rather than stopping it at the end of a full rotation, as most observers had been assuming.

If you don't do the 3 year rotation you have to have some kind of benefit for the ones who only got 3 semi-finals over the 10 years.

Which is the four other than the Rose/Sugar, but if the Rose/Sugar are permanent NYD QF while the other four are alternating QF and SF, the ones who only got 3 semi-finals over the 10 years would be in line to get their semi-finals in the first two years of the new arrangement.

What happens if all the conferences insist on opening the bidding to all media outlets, who could then bid on all or part of the 11 game package, and ESPN's bid for all of it is better than any combination of bids from anyone else? Would the conferences then let ESPN have it all, as they do now?

ESPN has a built in advantage over everybody else because they are the only ones who could offer to start the new format two years earlier than the end of the current contract. If the increase in money is large enough, two more years of megabucks payouts could make a big difference.

(09-30-2021 09:19 AM)ken d Wrote:  What happens if all the conferences insist on opening the bidding to all media outlets, who could then bid on all or part of the 11 game package, and ESPN's bid for all of it is better than any combination of bids from anyone else? Would the conferences then let ESPN have it all, as they do now?

ESPN has a built in advantage over everybody else because they are the only ones who could offer to start the new format two years earlier than the end of the current contract. If the increase in money is large enough, two more years of megabucks payouts could make a big difference.

That would be the rational approach. But college athletics is not always rational, it's often emotional.

I would bet on the rational approach winning out, but would not be surprised if it doesn't.

(09-29-2021 10:56 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 10:21 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 09:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 06:54 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(09-28-2021 05:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  From the beginning of the formation of the Alliance, I have questioned the notion that the prime motivation was to ensure that ESPN did not capture an expanded playoffs at a low-ball figure.

I've never understood why anyone would think that the SEC wouldn't be just as eager to maximize the payout from the playoffs as anyone else, whether that means splitting the package among multiple networks or not.

The Alliance is whatever you want it to be. It can be a scheduling agreement. It can be about splitting the package among multiple networks. It can be about protecting the student-athlete model. It can be about protecting the major bowls, particularly the Rose Bowl. It can be about putting a check on the SEC. It can be about creating a Power 4. What it is not...it is not in writing. It is a Gentleman's Agreement, which can make it highly effective.

I think the Alliance does not happen without George Kliavkoff, the new Pac-12 Commissioner. I think that one of his skills is being able to bring people together, listen to their concerns, collaborate, basically all the skills that Larry Scott lacked. He was talking about the same issues at the Pac-12 Media Day that helped bring the Alliance together:
https://static.pac-12.com/sports/footbal...ullens.pdf

One thing I think the Alliance is committed to is defending the "Collegiate Model".

I think that effort is doomed to fail.

I agree that they are committed to defend the "Collegiate Model." George Kliavkoff addressed that subject at the Pac-12 Media Day:

"With respect to the Austin case recently decided by the Supreme Court. I want to be on the record that we completely agree with the majority's affirmation that college sports is a special and distinct pursuit. As college students our student-athletes should be eligible to receive any and all legitimate educational benefits.

That said, we must continue to defend the collegiate model. It is likely that some will see the decision in Austin and particularly the language of the single concurring opinion as an invitation to attack the very foundation of the collegiate model. College athletes are students at educational institutions. In the case of the Pac-12, at some of the finest universities in the world. Introducing unfettered professional practices into college sports will undermine our educational mission and will have many unintended negative consequences, especially for athletes competing in women's and Olympic sports."

I cannot see schools like Stanford and UCLA, Northwestern and Michigan, and Duke and Virginia, accepting a professional model. I think making predictions are pointless, because no one really knows where this is going. It is going to evolve over the next few years and conferences just need to be prepared for some change.

Take a look around you, specifically at the different lawsuits being launched by college athletes against colleges/universities, and the NCAA. The athletes are not dumb. They see these coaches sign these huge mega deals, only to leave for the next mega deal. They see how much $$ these athletic departments are raking in with all of these conference realignment moves. They want in on the action as well!!! And this isn't just at the FBS level, dbackjon and ccd, and Iwokeuplikethis!!!!! This is at the Division 2 level as well!!!! Let that soak in your minds for awhile!!! Whether or not Stanford, UCLA, Northwestern, Michigan, Virginia, and/or Duke want to accept the professional model, they have no choice!!!
The chickens are coming back home to roost.

Every sport other than football and men's basketball loses money. There may be a handful of schools like Texas and LSU that make money off baseball or women's basketball or volleyball, but they are few and far between. No Division II or III school is making money.

(09-30-2021 09:19 AM)ken d Wrote:  What happens if all the conferences insist on opening the bidding to all media outlets, who could then bid on all or part of the 11 game package, and ESPN's bid for all of it is better than any combination of bids from anyone else? Would the conferences then let ESPN have it all, as they do now?

They would certainly not insist on prospective media partners bidding for all of the rights ... they would allow them to bid for half of the rights.

It seems unlikely that ESPN is going to be locked out, but there will surely be some competitive bid from other outlets. And with ESPN being able to have half by matching the next best bid while having to top the bid for half and then pay it twice over to get the whole ball of wax, ESPN having half the rights and some other outlet having the other half seems like it might have the inside track.

(09-30-2021 07:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 09:34 PM)VCE Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 07:33 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-28-2021 10:32 PM)VCE Wrote:  It would be nice to break the ESPN monopoly on the weekly playoff committee rankings.

I’d be wary that you add one or two extra network voices to the crowd shouting down an access slot. Talking about “the little guy” having a chance to prove something is just water cooler talk. The networks want the big schools who bring the big crowds and viewer numbers. You think adding CBS and Fox helps out the G5 cause for access? Heck, the bowls want no part of them as is. CFP committee doesn’t, either. You may see a problem with how to handle an access slot game between the media partners. One network controlling it and maybe being okay with it because they have so much skin in the game already wasn’t a bad thing.

I’m in favor of going back to the pre BCS system, and barring that (since it won’t happen), the current straight four or a straight eight. College football was better 15 years ago than it is today and far better than that 30 years ago.

ESPN is the entity responsible for ruining much of the two important sports. Eff em.

I would be very happy going back to the pre-BCS "bowl and poll" system too.

But the one way CFB is IMO *way* better now than 30 years ago is the profusion of games that are available on TV today compared to then. That's totally awesome, and ESPN has had a big hand in that, which I thank them for.

I’d take it back 40 years when one of the major bowls weren’t the deciding games for the championship. Like that BYU team who won it at the Holiday Bowl, or when nobody but the Fiesta could get two independents in Miami and Penn State to throw it down. THAT, imo, was when it was maybe its most “fair?”

Of course, the backlash is what brought us to here. BCS era totally blew, and it was pretty much the power conference and bowl partner circle-**** those cry-babies wanted. Man, to have been a fly on the wall at some of those schools and meeting rooms when BYU won it and at the Holiday Bowl. That clearly pissed a lot of people with power off.

(10-01-2021 07:48 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-30-2021 07:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 09:34 PM)VCE Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 07:33 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-28-2021 10:32 PM)VCE Wrote:  It would be nice to break the ESPN monopoly on the weekly playoff committee rankings.

I’d be wary that you add one or two extra network voices to the crowd shouting down an access slot. Talking about “the little guy” having a chance to prove something is just water cooler talk. The networks want the big schools who bring the big crowds and viewer numbers. You think adding CBS and Fox helps out the G5 cause for access? Heck, the bowls want no part of them as is. CFP committee doesn’t, either. You may see a problem with how to handle an access slot game between the media partners. One network controlling it and maybe being okay with it because they have so much skin in the game already wasn’t a bad thing.

I’m in favor of going back to the pre BCS system, and barring that (since it won’t happen), the current straight four or a straight eight. College football was better 15 years ago than it is today and far better than that 30 years ago.

ESPN is the entity responsible for ruining much of the two important sports. Eff em.

I would be very happy going back to the pre-BCS "bowl and poll" system too.

But the one way CFB is IMO *way* better now than 30 years ago is the profusion of games that are available on TV today compared to then. That's totally awesome, and ESPN has had a big hand in that, which I thank them for.

I’d take it back 40 years when one of the major bowls weren’t the deciding games for the championship. Like that BYU team who won it at the Holiday Bowl, or when nobody but the Fiesta could get two independents in Miami and Penn State to throw it down. THAT, imo, was when it was maybe its most “fair?”

Of course, the backlash is what brought us to here. BCS era totally blew, and it was pretty much the power conference and bowl partner circle-**** those cry-babies wanted. Man, to have been a fly on the wall at some of those schools and meeting rooms when BYU won it and at the Holiday Bowl. That clearly pissed a lot of people with power off.

Like 1983 when Nebraska and Texas were #1 and #2 and the two best teams and couldn't meet. Both slept-walked through their bowls and got beat by 1, giving Miami FL their first MNC.