The Pac-2 Court decision was the worst case scenario for many Bowl Executives.

Technically, I think there are 5 bowls that remain contractually obligated to the Pac-2 for another 2 years.

Alamo
Las Vegas
Holiday
Sun
Los Angeles

Does the Pac-2 release them?
Do the bowls just need to work on alternate bowl ties assuming the Pac-2 won't meet their bowl obligations?

A little ridiculous for 2 teams to carry 5 bowl ties for the next 2 seasons. Allow 3 bowls to cut ties and find new partners.

I'd argue the bowl payouts should be adjusted too, that bowl tie isn't as big of a draw without Oregon, USC, Washington, Colorado.

They will break the contracts. It's not that hard.

That does sound like a potential mess. If the PAC 2 works out a "scheduling agreement" with the MWC, maybe those schools will be able to fill some of the unneeded PAC slots? May not be a satisfactory outcome for bowls who thought they'd get some appearances by schools like Southern Cal, Washington, etc.

(11-20-2023 02:46 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  They will break the contracts. It's not that hard.

Yeah - I think this is actually one of the easier subjects to handle. The bowl contracts can be assigned, suspended or terminated depending upon what the parties decide to do. It’s no different than when a conference can’t fill its bowl tie-ins in a particular season, which happens quite often. Contingency clauses are almost certainly in all of these bowl agreements.

(11-20-2023 02:46 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  That does sound like a potential mess. If the PAC 2 works out a "scheduling agreement" with the MWC, maybe those schools will be able to fill some of the unneeded PAC slots? May not be a satisfactory outcome for bowls who thought they'd get some appearances by schools like Southern Cal, Washington, etc.

Yea, the Pac-2 vs MWC bowl matchup is rendered useless and uninteresting with the new scheduling agreement.

The interesting thing to me here is that there are going to be a few good bowls - The Sun, Las Vegas, Holiday, and Alamo bowls come to mind - that need new conference tie-ins. Curious as to who will get them.

Holiday - BIG vs ACC
Aloma - SEC vs B-12
LV - B-12 vs SEC/BIG
Sun - B-12 vs ACC
LA - MWC vs B-12
Independence - B-12 vs AAC

B-12 is 16 next yr, their gonna need 10-11 bowls

(11-20-2023 04:12 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Holiday - BIG vs ACC
Aloma - SEC vs B-12
LV - B-12 vs SEC/BIG
Sun - B-12 vs ACC
LA - MWC vs B-12
Independence - B-12 vs AAC

B-12 is 16 next yr, their gonna need 10-11 bowls

Big Ten is going to 18 so they need a few more bowls, too.

I think Vegas becomes Big Ten vs. Big 12/SEC. Vegas already had the attributes of a classic Big Ten bowl market (lots of Midwestern transplants living in a vacation destination that people naturally gravitate toward during the holidays regardless of a bowl) and that’s only solidified more with the addition of the LA schools. IMHO, this bowl doesn’t fit the SEC very well (although Vegas is likely paying a lot, so that’s probably a driving factor).

Alamo could end up being Big Ten vs. Big 12 - that used to be the matchup in that game and it’s the Texas-based bowl that B1G teams really traveled well to (more so than compared to Dallas or Houston).

LA is hard to read. The MWC presumably wouldn’t give up their slot and it’s an early bowl game in the schedule, so I’m not sure how much interest either the Big Ten or Big 12 have in that game. Honestly, this ought to be a Big Ten vs. Big 12 game, but the MWC contract may prevent it. So, I guess you’d be right

Agree with you on the Sun and Independence - those are clearly better as Big 12 tie-ins compared to Big Ten tie-ins.

(11-20-2023 04:58 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-20-2023 04:12 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Holiday - BIG vs ACC
Aloma - SEC vs B-12
LV - B-12 vs SEC/BIG
Sun - B-12 vs ACC
LA - MWC vs B-12
Independence - B-12 vs AAC

B-12 is 16 next yr, their gonna need 10-11 bowls

Big Ten is going to 18 so they need a few more bowls, too.

I think Vegas becomes Big Ten vs. Big 12/SEC. Vegas already had the attributes of a classic Big Ten bowl market (lots of Midwestern transplants living in a vacation destination that people naturally gravitate toward during the holidays regardless of a bowl) and that’s only solidified more with the addition of the LA schools. IMHO, this bowl doesn’t fit the SEC very well (although Vegas is likely paying a lot, so that’s probably a driving factor).

Alamo could end up being Big Ten vs. Big 12 - that used to be the matchup in that game and it’s the Texas-based bowl that B1G teams really traveled well to (more so than compared to Dallas or Houston).

LA is hard to read. The MWC presumably wouldn’t give up their slot and it’s an early bowl game in the schedule, so I’m not sure how much interest either the Big Ten or Big 12 have in that game. Honestly, this ought to be a Big Ten vs. Big 12 game, but the MWC contract may prevent it. So, I guess you’d be right

Agree with you on the Sun and Independence - those are clearly better as Big 12 tie-ins compared to Big Ten tie-ins.

Yeah but the playoff is going to be taking the Top 4 B1G and SEC teams into it on a regular basis.

That means that any of these bowl games outside of the CFP can only hope for a 5th pick from the P2 at best.

This is partially why I feel like it makes sense for the bowls to reorganize with slots for the Top 20 teams and non-CFP conference champs to ensure a more compelling opponent in these games.

(11-20-2023 05:02 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(11-20-2023 04:58 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-20-2023 04:12 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Holiday - BIG vs ACC
Aloma - SEC vs B-12
LV - B-12 vs SEC/BIG
Sun - B-12 vs ACC
LA - MWC vs B-12
Independence - B-12 vs AAC

B-12 is 16 next yr, their gonna need 10-11 bowls

Big Ten is going to 18 so they need a few more bowls, too.

I think Vegas becomes Big Ten vs. Big 12/SEC. Vegas already had the attributes of a classic Big Ten bowl market (lots of Midwestern transplants living in a vacation destination that people naturally gravitate toward during the holidays regardless of a bowl) and that’s only solidified more with the addition of the LA schools. IMHO, this bowl doesn’t fit the SEC very well (although Vegas is likely paying a lot, so that’s probably a driving factor).

Alamo could end up being Big Ten vs. Big 12 - that used to be the matchup in that game and it’s the Texas-based bowl that B1G teams really traveled well to (more so than compared to Dallas or Houston).

LA is hard to read. The MWC presumably wouldn’t give up their slot and it’s an early bowl game in the schedule, so I’m not sure how much interest either the Big Ten or Big 12 have in that game. Honestly, this ought to be a Big Ten vs. Big 12 game, but the MWC contract may prevent it. So, I guess you’d be right

Agree with you on the Sun and Independence - those are clearly better as Big 12 tie-ins compared to Big Ten tie-ins.

Yeah but the playoff is going to be taking the Top 4 B1G and SEC teams into it on a regular basis.

That means that any of these bowl games outside of the CFP can only hope for a 5th pick from the P2 at best.

This is partially why I feel like it makes sense for the bowls to reorganize with slots for the Top 20 teams and non-CFP conference champs to ensure a more compelling opponent in these games.

It doesn’t matter. The Big Ten and SEC are deep with schools that can travel beyond their top teams. That’s why they’ve always been the top bowl partners and that’s going to be even more the case now. The Big Ten and SEC just took the best Pac-12 and Big 12 teams from a bowl perspective (among other things).

(11-20-2023 05:08 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-20-2023 05:02 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(11-20-2023 04:58 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-20-2023 04:12 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Holiday - BIG vs ACC
Aloma - SEC vs B-12
LV - B-12 vs SEC/BIG
Sun - B-12 vs ACC
LA - MWC vs B-12
Independence - B-12 vs AAC

B-12 is 16 next yr, their gonna need 10-11 bowls

Big Ten is going to 18 so they need a few more bowls, too.

I think Vegas becomes Big Ten vs. Big 12/SEC. Vegas already had the attributes of a classic Big Ten bowl market (lots of Midwestern transplants living in a vacation destination that people naturally gravitate toward during the holidays regardless of a bowl) and that’s only solidified more with the addition of the LA schools. IMHO, this bowl doesn’t fit the SEC very well (although Vegas is likely paying a lot, so that’s probably a driving factor).

Alamo could end up being Big Ten vs. Big 12 - that used to be the matchup in that game and it’s the Texas-based bowl that B1G teams really traveled well to (more so than compared to Dallas or Houston).

LA is hard to read. The MWC presumably wouldn’t give up their slot and it’s an early bowl game in the schedule, so I’m not sure how much interest either the Big Ten or Big 12 have in that game. Honestly, this ought to be a Big Ten vs. Big 12 game, but the MWC contract may prevent it. So, I guess you’d be right

Agree with you on the Sun and Independence - those are clearly better as Big 12 tie-ins compared to Big Ten tie-ins.

Yeah but the playoff is going to be taking the Top 4 B1G and SEC teams into it on a regular basis.

That means that any of these bowl games outside of the CFP can only hope for a 5th pick from the P2 at best.

This is partially why I feel like it makes sense for the bowls to reorganize with slots for the Top 20 teams and non-CFP conference champs to ensure a more compelling opponent in these games.

It doesn’t matter. The Big Ten and SEC are deep with schools that can travel beyond their top teams. That’s why they’ve always been the top bowl partners and that’s going to be even more the case now. The Big Ten and SEC just took the best Pac-12 and Big 12 teams from a bowl perspective (among other things).

It will matter but probably not very much.

How many games are the B1G and ACC going to sign for example? Does the ACC go with 14 tie-ins and the B1G only 12 under the assumption it will place more teams into the CFP?

Its going to be awkward.

Suggestion:

OSU and WSU, each, play in two of the bowls each year. Then play each other in the fifth. All five bowls covered!

(11-20-2023 05:16 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(11-20-2023 05:08 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-20-2023 05:02 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(11-20-2023 04:58 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-20-2023 04:12 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Holiday - BIG vs ACC
Aloma - SEC vs B-12
LV - B-12 vs SEC/BIG
Sun - B-12 vs ACC
LA - MWC vs B-12
Independence - B-12 vs AAC

B-12 is 16 next yr, their gonna need 10-11 bowls

Big Ten is going to 18 so they need a few more bowls, too.

I think Vegas becomes Big Ten vs. Big 12/SEC. Vegas already had the attributes of a classic Big Ten bowl market (lots of Midwestern transplants living in a vacation destination that people naturally gravitate toward during the holidays regardless of a bowl) and that’s only solidified more with the addition of the LA schools. IMHO, this bowl doesn’t fit the SEC very well (although Vegas is likely paying a lot, so that’s probably a driving factor).

Alamo could end up being Big Ten vs. Big 12 - that used to be the matchup in that game and it’s the Texas-based bowl that B1G teams really traveled well to (more so than compared to Dallas or Houston).

LA is hard to read. The MWC presumably wouldn’t give up their slot and it’s an early bowl game in the schedule, so I’m not sure how much interest either the Big Ten or Big 12 have in that game. Honestly, this ought to be a Big Ten vs. Big 12 game, but the MWC contract may prevent it. So, I guess you’d be right

Agree with you on the Sun and Independence - those are clearly better as Big 12 tie-ins compared to Big Ten tie-ins.

Yeah but the playoff is going to be taking the Top 4 B1G and SEC teams into it on a regular basis.

That means that any of these bowl games outside of the CFP can only hope for a 5th pick from the P2 at best.

This is partially why I feel like it makes sense for the bowls to reorganize with slots for the Top 20 teams and non-CFP conference champs to ensure a more compelling opponent in these games.

It doesn’t matter. The Big Ten and SEC are deep with schools that can travel beyond their top teams. That’s why they’ve always been the top bowl partners and that’s going to be even more the case now. The Big Ten and SEC just took the best Pac-12 and Big 12 teams from a bowl perspective (among other things).

It will matter but probably not very much.

How many games are the B1G and ACC going to sign for example? Does the ACC go with 14 tie-ins and the B1G only 12 under the assumption it will place more teams into the CFP?

Its going to be awkward.

It’s not going to be awkward. The Big Ten and SEC will sign for as many tie-ins as allowed. If they can’t fill a bowl spot, then it goes to a back-up tie-in or becomes open for other leagues. That is how it has long worked for when schools were chosen for the NY6 or BCS bowls.

Thinking in terms of league size when the bowl contracts were negotiated vs where they will be in 2024:

Big 10: +4
Big 12: +6
ACC: +3
SEC: +2

The Big 12 is definitely going to need more bowls and so is the Big 10. The ACC and SEC can probably get by with what they’ve got.

before BIG starts chasing other bowls,
I like to see them get somebody in Motor City bowl.
MAC did great job building that game up,
BIG came along stomped all over it

I'd say yes but mainly because I doubt other bowls may not want to drop down the pecking order for other conferences. They may be stuck with at large teams a few years. Unless they want like the Big 12 #8 or something.

(11-20-2023 05:02 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  ... Yeah but the playoff is going to be taking the Top 4 B1G and SEC teams into it on a regular basis.

That means that any of these bowl games outside of the CFP can only hope for a 5th pick from the P2 at best.

One, that's not how the phrase "at best" works. "At best" is the best case. If the Top4 Big Ten schools are frequently but not always in the CPF12, and the Top3 are always in the CFP12, then the "at best" outcome is not the #5 pick, it is the #4 pick.

Obviously these are the same schools that were in the NY6, so if the NY6 are serving as Quarterfinal bowls, it's really same/same. The difference is, indeed, that the BigTen has four more schools, and frequently two or three more bowl eligible schools per season.

_____________

(11-20-2023 05:58 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  Suggestion:

OSU and WSU, each, play in two of the bowls each year. Then play each other in the fifth. All five bowls covered!

They get a maximum of one bowl game if they are not in the CFP.

So, no, the PAC2 will have to release three of the five tie-ins.

I predict that this will not include the Rose Bowl unless the Rose Bowl buys them off.

(11-20-2023 02:37 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  The Pac-2 Court decision was the worst case scenario for many Bowl Executives.

Technically, I think there are 5 bowls that remain contractually obligated to the Pac-2 for another 2 years.

Alamo
Las Vegas
Holiday
Sun
Los Angeles

Does the Pac-2 release them?
Do the bowls just need to work on alternate bowl ties assuming the Pac-2 won't meet their bowl obligations?

A little ridiculous for 2 teams to carry 5 bowl ties for the next 2 seasons. Allow 3 bowls to cut ties and find new partners.

I'd argue the bowl payouts should be adjusted too, that bowl tie isn't as big of a draw without Oregon, USC, Washington, Colorado.

Current bowl tie-ins

- LA Bowl vs Mountain West
- Holiday Bowl vs ACC
- Las Vegas Bowl vs SEC
- Sun Bowl vs ACC
- Alamo Bowl vs Big 12

My guess:

LA Bowl: ACC vs MWC
Holiday: B10 vs ACC
Las Vegas: B10 vs SEC
Sun: B12 vs ACC
Alamo: SEC vs B12

I believe the Sun Bowl is still one of the few bowls not owned by ESPN. It will be interesting to see how that bowl chooses their ties in the wake of the PAC's demise.

(11-20-2023 04:12 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Holiday - BIG vs ACC
Aloma - SEC vs B-12
LV - B-12 vs SEC/BIG
Sun - B-12 vs ACC
LA - MWC vs B-12
Independence - B-12 vs AAC

B-12 is 16 next yr, their gonna need 10-11 bowls

Good matchups, just one nit -

In your scenario, the Las Vegas Bowl moves the SEC from being a full-participant vs the PAC to being a rotational one with the B1G, with the nB12 as the full-participant. I don't think it very likely that the nB12 will be prioritized over the SEC for any bowl, much less a high-profile one like LV.

We'll see.