Aresco's biggest challenge.

[noeynox]

In my opinion it will not be the TV contract. It is money distribution from what was formerly called the BCS. I for one feel better seeing as Aresco has been out campaigning and saying all the right things about where the Big East belongs, but I don't think it will be an easy task by no means.

Show me the money

 

[Marty Jackson]

 

[jbdphi]

In my opinion it will not be the TV contract. It is money distribution from what was formerly called the BCS. I for one feel better seeing as Aresco has been out campaigning and saying all the right things about where the Big East belongs, but I don't think it will be an easy task by no means.

Show me the money

This is what I really don't understand about this whole process. So let's say that a miracle happens and the ACC Champion goes to the four team playoff but their second team is not good enough to qualify for the other "big money" games. Does their second place team automatically qualify for "big money" game because they are contractually required to go to the Orange Bowl? Same applies to the SEC, B12, B1G or P12 I suppose. If their second team really stinks (wasn't UCLA strictly speaking the second place team in the PAC-12 last year?), does that mean that still get to go to the Rose Bowl and the PAC-12 automatically gets two spots in the "big money" games?

This whole thing makes my head spin a bit. I still don't see what big bowl game would really be that interested in locking up the Big East champion every year. Basically the Orange Bowl is controlled by the ACC and I don't see that happening either?

I'm sure there is probably a good reason not to, but why doesn't the Big East create its own bowl game / tie-in like they did with the Pinstripe but instead of our 4th place team, make it our champion and try to lock up the best possible opponent for that game (i.e. SEC #2 or #3 depending on playoffs, etc.).

 

[noeynox]

Just curious, was your post below advising Aresco, was your advise that Aresco show the rest of the commissioners his tits?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

By my estimate, Hawaii will be the only school from the new MWC, MAC, CUSA and Sun Belt to have ever played in a BCS bowl. Nevada and Miami of Ohio are the only 2 others from that grouping to have ever even gotten close. The gap between the MWC and Big East will be bigger than it was before.

The smart move remains to get BYU, because that program is appealing both to TV and bowls. Then I think the Big East should cut a deal with both the Fiesta and Orange, such that if a western school wins the Big East, Fiesta gets first choice, and if an eastern school wins the Big East, Orange gets first choice.

 

[Rondogg]

"Beyond the 4 in the playoff I really don't understand it yet either. "

Me too.

 

[gioff23]

IMO, his biggest challenge is getting the FB schools to say no to the next raid. If one or 2 leave, the conference is toast

 

[Carl Spackler]

This is what I really don't understand about this whole process. So let's say that a miracle happens and the ACC Champion goes to the four team playoff but their second team is not good enough to qualify for the other "big money" games. Does their second place team automatically qualify for "big money" game because they are contractually required to go to the Orange Bowl? Same applies to the SEC, B12, B1G or P12 I suppose. If their second team really stinks (wasn't UCLA strictly speaking the second place team in the PAC-12 last year?), does that mean that still get to go to the Rose Bowl and the PAC-12 automatically gets two spots in the "big money" games?

This whole thing makes my head spin a bit. I still don't see what big bowl game would really be that interested in locking up the Big East champion every year. Basically the Orange Bowl is controlled by the ACC and I don't see that happening either?

I'm sure there is probably a good reason not to, but why doesn't the Big East create its own bowl game / tie-in like they did with the Pinstripe but instead of our 4th place team, make it our champion and try to lock up the best possible opponent for that game (i.e. SEC #2 or #3 depending on playoffs, etc.).

The fundamental, common denominator, to all the problems around revenue sharing - is answering the question...."Who owns the broadcasting revenue rights?" The current BCS system through 2014, is designed by Roy Kramer, and has been - financially - a fantastic thing for all of college athletics. There are plenty of negatives to balance the positive though. The current system is based upon agreements made among athletic conference leaderships of the 11 division 1-A (now FBS) conferences and Notre Dame. How the AD at Notre Dame, managed to get that position of influence.....that's another story........

Of those 11 conferences, 4 long time conferences, and 2 newer ones - trivia question, what current BCS-AQ conference has the shortest history of existence?..........managed to get into a position of control over the other 5, how that happened, is again, another LONG story......

Those 6 conferences, decided that they would open the doors a bit to teh revenue streams aroudn the college football post season, to the other conferences, if those oncferences could produce football programs, that were deemed worthy of a certain bowl invite......and those other 5 conferences, also agreed, eventually to split whatever the 6 "power" conferences gave them, equally amongst themselves, rather than the conference that produced the 'chosen' one, keeping it all.

It all goes back to who controls the revenue. RIght now, to my knowledge, the BCS management (which is only a handful of people) has complete control of college football post season revenue, and leaves it the conferences, to squabble for how it will be divvied up.

As of 2014, things will either be different, or they will be the same. I suspect that things will remain the same, and as Roy Kramer has recently predicted, the arguments will no longer center on the controversy of who is #1 and #2, but who is #4 and #5.

I think it's very important that the playoff evolve very quickly into a format that involves all 11 conference champions, and conference champions only, and that the revenue from that playoff system gets divided up proportionally by how far each conference winner advances.

Until there is a legitimate playoff among all conference champs, the revenue sharing system in place shouldn't really change much. I don't see anyone willing giving up what they've got with a 4 team playoff. That includes the Big East.

 

[frankthetank]

This is what I believe is the case.

Beyond the 4 in the playoff I really don't understand it yet either.

As of today:

If a "Contract Bowl" conference has a team that qualifies for the playoff and its Contract Bowl is NOT a semifinal host that year, then that Contract Bowl will take another team from that conference. For example, if the ACC has a semifinal team and the Orange Bowl isn't a semifinal, then the Orange Bowl will take a different ACC team regardless of that team's ranking or record. If the second place ACC team happens to be 6-6 that particular year, it doesn't matter - that team is still going to the Orange Bowl. There is 100% clarity on this issue straight from interviews with the head of the BCS. When the Contract Bowls aren't hosting semifinals, the Rose is going to be Big Ten vs. Pac-12, the Champions is going to be SEC vs. Big 12 and the Orange is going to have an ACC team regardless of records or rankings.

On the flip side, if a Contract Bowl conference's home Contract Bowl is a semifinal host in a particular year and that conference does not have any team that qualifies for the semifinals, then that conference's champion will go to one of the other top 6 bowls (once again, regardless of that team's record or ranking). So, for example, if the ACC champ is 6-6 and the Orange Bowl is hosting a semifinal, that ACC champ will still go to one of the other top 6 bowls. There is also 100% clarity on this issue from the head of the BCS.

What's murkier is what happens when there's a mix of the above when a Contract Bowl conference sends a team to the semifinals AND its Contract Bowl is a semifinal host that same year. That's still up in the air. What I'm hearing is that the ACC's opponent in the Orange Bowl would come from a pool of Notre Dame, the SEC, Big Ten and Big 12. Those 3 conferences could be sending their #1 or #2 team to face the ACC in the Orange Bowl depending upon the semifinal rotation.

 

[Carl Spackler]

As of today:

If a "Contract Bowl" conference has a team that qualifies for the playoff and its Contract Bowl is NOT a semifinal host that year, then that Contract Bowl will take another team from that conference. For example, if the ACC has a semifinal team and the Orange Bowl isn't a semifinal, then the Orange Bowl will take a different ACC team regardless of that team's ranking or record. If the second place ACC team happens to be 6-6 that particular year, it doesn't matter - that team is still going to the Orange Bowl. There is 100% clarity on this issue straight from interviews with the head of the BCS. When the Contract Bowls aren't hosting semifinals, the Rose is going to be Big Ten vs. Pac-12, the Champions is going to be SEC vs. Big 12 and the Orange is going to have an ACC team regardless of records or rankings.

On the flip side, if a Contract Bowl conference's home Contract Bowl is a semifinal host in a particular year and that conference does not have any team that qualifies for the semifinals, then that conference's champion will go to one of the other top 6 bowls (once again, regardless of that team's record or ranking). So, for example, if the ACC champ is 6-6 and the Orange Bowl is hosting a semifinal, that ACC champ will still go to one of the other top 6 bowls. There is also 100% clarity on this issue from the head of the BCS.

What's murkier is what happens when there's a mix of the above when a Contract Bowl conference sends a team to the semifinals AND its Contract Bowl is a semifinal host that same year. That's still up in the air. What I'm hearing is that the ACC's opponent in the Orange Bowl would come from a pool of Notre Dame, the SEC, Big Ten and Big 12. Those 3 conferences could be sending their #1 or #2 team to face the ACC in the Orange Bowl depending upon the semifinal rotation.

Here's a simpler way to say all of this. Essentially nothing has changed at this point, or in the near future, among the 6 AQ, 5 Non-AQ conferences, and Notre Dame except the actual conference membership.

As of 2014, there will be the equivalent of a 6th BCS bowl game and then a 7th national championship game, as far as revenue is concerned. I see no reason whatsoever that revenue sharing is going to change among all of division 1-A football and the college football post season. Nobody is giving anything up.

The only way that revenue sharing changes, is twofold - #1. Control of revenue rights reverts back to the NCAA itself (absolutely zero chance of that happening) OR #2. if the playoff expands in such a way that all 11 conference champions - and ONLY conference champions - are involved.

 

[huskyjawz]

As of today:

If a "Contract Bowl" conference has a team that qualifies for the playoff and its Contract Bowl is NOT a semifinal host that year, then that Contract Bowl will take another team from that conference. For example, if the ACC has a semifinal team and the Orange Bowl isn't a semifinal, then the Orange Bowl will take a different ACC team regardless of that team's ranking or record. If the second place ACC team happens to be 6-6 that particular year, it doesn't matter - that team is still going to the Orange Bowl. There is 100% clarity on this issue straight from interviews with the head of the BCS. When the Contract Bowls aren't hosting semifinals, the Rose is going to be Big Ten vs. Pac-12, the Champions is going to be SEC vs. Big 12 and the Orange is going to have an ACC team regardless of records or rankings.

On the flip side, if a Contract Bowl conference's home Contract Bowl is a semifinal host in a particular year and that conference does not have any team that qualifies for the semifinals, then that conference's champion will go to one of the other top 6 bowls (once again, regardless of that team's record or ranking). So, for example, if the ACC champ is 6-6 and the Orange Bowl is hosting a semifinal, that ACC champ will still go to one of the other top 6 bowls. There is also 100% clarity on this issue from the head of the BCS.

What's murkier is what happens when there's a mix of the above when a Contract Bowl conference sends a team to the semifinals AND its Contract Bowl is a semifinal host that same year. That's still up in the air. What I'm hearing is that the ACC's opponent in the Orange Bowl would come from a pool of Notre Dame, the SEC, Big Ten and Big 12. Those 3 conferences could be sending their #1 or #2 team to face the ACC in the Orange Bowl depending upon the semifinal rotation.

Question,

In the scenario above where there is a second ACC team involved, does it have to be the second place team, or can it be another ACC team of the bowl's choosing, where they could take a better name?

 

[Pudge]

What does a "contract bowl" take?

Look ... if we read the tea leaves right, NBC/Universal/Comcast is going to pay a ton of money for the 6th league. Probably $2b over the life of a contract. And a "contract bowl" ... as we have seen with ESPN ... sprouts up overnight. Put it in Dallas ... call it the COTTON BOWL ... or I dunno ... there are a bunch of other interesting cities. claver ... you are grasping there. For money, you would get a top 3 team from the other 5 to play in the Comcast Bowl.

 

[frankthetank]

Disagree.

Since the NNNNBE doesn't have a "contract bowl" the conf champ could be left out unless I interpretted his long post incorrectly.

SEC: Sugar
B10: Rose
B12: Fiesta
PAC10: Rose
ACC: Orange

Correct. That's one major difference in that the Big East champ isn't guaranteed a home unless it pulls off a very very very unlikely deal with the Orange Bowl.

Another major difference is that it is possible that low-ranked "Contract Conference" schools that weren't conference champs can still get bids. In the current system, if the Rose Bowl loses a Big Ten team to the national championship game, it can only take a Big Ten replacement that is ranked #14 or higher. In the new system, the Rose Bowl can replace a Big Ten semifinalist with any Big Ten team that it wants regardless of ranking. Looking back at historical rankings in the BCS era, that would have happened often enough with all of the power leagues (even the SEC) that it's a pretty material change. Many of the power conferences will be getting 2 BCS bids when they would have only received 1 BCS bid in prior years.

The last major difference is that the Contract Conferences are working under the guise that they will be keeping all of the Contract Bowl media revenue for themselves in non-semifinal years. This works out to $40 million each for the Big Ten, Pac-12, SEC and Big 12 for the Rose and Champions Bowls, respectively, just in terms of TV money. We're not even getting into sponsorship dollars and other revenue sources. Dodd says that this is supposed to be an issue in the playoff discussions, but with Delany, Slive and Swofford all on the revenue subcommittee, that's likely going to be a short debate. The Contract Conferences are going to get their way on this one... and remember that's BEFORE we talk about the revenue from the playoff itself and the 3 other "access bowls". It's possible that the Big East might maintain the same level of payout as it does in today's BCS system, but the other 5 power conferences are seeing their revenue increase several times over.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Hey guys that know things.......the big east has never had a "contract" arrangement with a bowl. The confernece has always been an 'at-large' for the BCS. The only thing about AQ status - was that the conference was guaranteed to be picked for at least one of the bowls.

AQ status is gone as of 2014, it goes back to what it was before the BCS-AQ arrangement, and that's what a myopic old man like Neinas has missed. THe AQ status was entirely about revenue sharing, not bowl matchups.

The Orange Bowl would be the natural home for the Big East champ, but the ACC has destroyed that game, to the point where the Big East just might be better served to either build up a different existing Florida bowl game, or create a new one.

It's pretty sad - the Orange Bowl was once, not too long ago, a very, very good thing. That's the ACC for you though.

The big east has NYC for basketball post season, we need to get Florida back for football post season.

 

[jbdphi]

Another major difference is that it is possible that low-ranked "Contract Conference" schools that weren't conference champs can still get bids. In the current system, if the Rose Bowl loses a Big Ten team to the national championship game, it can only take a Big Ten replacement that is ranked #14 or higher. In the new system, the Rose Bowl can replace a Big Ten semifinalist with any Big Ten team that it wants regardless of ranking. Looking back at historical rankings in the BCS era, that would have happened often enough with all of the power leagues (even the SEC) that it's a pretty material change. Many of the power conferences will be getting 2 BCS bids when they would have only received 1 BCS bid in prior years.

This is what I was worried about and yet it sounds so ridiculous that I can't see it actually happening. I mean, if UCLA was in the rose Bowl last year (since the P12 champ would presumably be in the top 4), that would have been a travesty of epic proportions and the blowback from the public in that scenario would have been mind boggling.

There has to be some sort of minimum performance requirement I'm guessing. Otherwise this thing looks too ridiculous. I mean, what is the point of the committee picking the remainder of the "contract bowls" is so many of them are automatic?

 

[Marty Jackson]

Just curious, was your post below advising Aresco, was your advise that Aresco show the rest of the commissioners his tits?

Did you not watch the clip? Clearly I am advising Aresco "to dance with a tiger"...
Attention to details is not your strong suit?

 

[Marty Jackson]

Disagree.

Since the NNNNBE doesn't have a "contract bowl" the conf champ could be left out unless I interpretted his long post incorrectly.

SEC: Sugar
B10: Rose
B12: Fiesta
PAC10: Rose
ACC: Orange

I think those affiliations are dead... After 2014, sugar and fiesta are non-contract bowls.

 

[pj]

Yes. The Big East has to create its own contract bowl on NBC. The Orange Bowl is impossible now that the ACC has grabbed the revenue. Without support from their broadcast network, the other bowls will not likely commit to the Big East, so the Big East will only get a contract with a bowl that shares its broadcaster. Since NBC will get the Big East and doesn't have any of the major bowls, a new NBC contract bowl will have to be created. NBC will want the inventory and the Big East will want the exposure & parity with other conferences.

The result of all this is that outside the playoffs, the top teams will not play each other. Bowl games will become blowouts as conference champs play #3 teams from other conferences. This will increase the pressure to expand the playoff.

 

[Marty Jackson]

So, if I'm the ACC, I get paid for going to the Orange Bowl regardless. On top of that, I will get paid more if I have a team in the playoffs (or two). And, I assume more money for getting to the NC game.

This may have been covered, but I'll ask anyway... The money being paid to the ACC. Is that BCS funding or money from ESPN or both?

Would seem that the vehicle for spreading the $'s is somewhat determined. Sure, there is some decision making around the actual $'s, but you can certainly see that some schools have essentially guaranteed themselves a pay day regardless of onfield performance. Of course this is at the expense of the other conferences.

I feel better with someone like Aresco looking out for the BE. But looking back to see how this whole process how did we go from the Big10 and Pac12 squaring off against the SEC and Big12 regarding playoffs to suddenly everyone looking for a bowl partner to contract with thereby creating AQ Status 2.0... Seems to convenient that all this happens without any collusion such that the BE essentially loses their AQ status and is relegated to mid-major status.

 

[frankthetank]

This is what I was worried about and yet it sounds so ridiculous that I can't see it actually happening. I mean, if UCLA was in the rose Bowl last year (since the P12 champ would presumably be in the top 4), that would have been a travesty of epic proportions and the blowback from the public in that scenario would have been mind boggling.

There has to be some sort of minimum performance requirement I'm guessing. Otherwise this thing looks too ridiculous. I mean, what is the point of the committee picking the remainder of the "contract bowls" is so many of them are automatic?

Nope. There won't be any performance requirements for Contract Conferences with respect to their own Contract Bowls (outside of needing to be bowl eligible with 6 wins). This is ironclad - take a look at Stewart Mandel from Sports Illustrated going over this exact question with the BCS director right after the new playoff system was announced:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...3/playoff-bowls-penn-state-mailbag/index.html

Besides, if the powers that be cared at all about blowback from the public, they would have scrapped the bowl system entirely and created an NCAA Tournament-style playoff, which obviously isn't happening. The thing is that control and limited access in and of itself is as important to the power conferences as money. The control and limited access for the postseason elevates the value of the money that the power conferences care about even more, which is their regular season TV packages. All of the power conferences (which I can't really include the Big East as a member of at least when it comes to the postseason system) aren't even shy about this. The Big Ten and Pac-12 want the Rose Bowl all to themselves when it isn't a semifinal, which also happens to be what the Rose Bowl itself and its TV partners want, too.

From the very beginning, the quid pro quo from the power conferences was that they would tighten access over the top tier bowls (which are based upon traditional brand names, TV ratings and ticket sales) in exchange for a larger playoff system. The non-power conferences were NEVER going to get both (and anyone that thought that would happen was duped).

Think of it this way:

Playoff = The Oscars
Bowls = Movie theaters

The Oscars are based on merit (albeit with a lot of subjectivity involved, similar to college football). In contrast, movie theaters are in the business of selling tickets, so they'd rather show the latest franchise blockbuster brand name regardless of whether they are Oscar-worthy (similar to fact that bowls only care about schools that will sell tickets and draw high TV ratings, although the most successful movies and ticket selling bowl teams generally have at least some merit behind them).

 

[jbdphi]

Nope. There won't be any performance requirements for Contract Conferences with respect to their own Contract Bowls (outside of needing to be bowl eligible with 6 wins). This is ironclad - take a look at Stewart Mandel from Sports Illustrated going over this exact question with the BCS director right after the new playoff system was announced:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...3/playoff-bowls-penn-state-mailbag/index.html

Besides, if the powers that be cared at all about blowback from the public, they would have scrapped the bowl system entirely and created an NCAA Tournament-style playoff, which obviously isn't happening. The thing is that control and limited access in and of itself is as important to the power conferences as money. The control and limited access for the postseason elevates the value of the money that the power conferences care about even more, which is their regular season TV packages. All of the power conferences (which I can't really include the Big East as a member of at least when it comes to the postseason system) aren't even shy about this. The Big Ten and Pac-12 want the Rose Bowl all to themselves when it isn't a semifinal, which also happens to be what the Rose Bowl itself and its TV partners want, too.

From the very beginning, the quid pro quo from the power conferences was that they would tighten access over the top tier bowls (which are based upon traditional brand names, TV ratings and ticket sales) in exchange for a larger playoff system. The non-power conferences were NEVER going to get both (and anyone that thought that would happen was duped).

Think of it this way:

Playoff = The Oscars
Bowls = Movie theaters

The Oscars are based on merit (albeit with a lot of subjectivity involved, similar to college football). In contrast, movie theaters are in the business of selling tickets, so they'd rather show the latest franchise blockbuster brand name regardless of whether they are Oscar-worthy (similar to fact that bowls only care about schools that will sell tickets and draw high TV ratings, although the most successful movies and ticket selling bowl teams generally have at least some merit behind them).

Appreciate the link. It all still confuses the heck out of me since it seems that in any given year, depending on who is hosting the playoffs and who makes the playoffs, the "at large" teams selected by the committee could vary significantly. For instance, if One semi-final pits the B1G v P12 at the Rose Bowl and the other pits the SEC v B12 at the Champions bowl (wherever it might be), the only contract bowl at that point would be the Orange Bowl with the ACC, right? That is, assuming the Orange Bowl is a contract bowl?

Take the opposite situation with a B1G v SEC in one semi-final at the Cotton Bowl and a P12 v ACC team at the Fiesta Bowl. Five of the remaining spots would be taken by "contracts" leaving three "at large" selections. Is that right?

 

[frankthetank]

Hey guys that know things.......the big east has never had a "contract" arrangement with a bowl. The confernece has always been an 'at-large' for the BCS. The only thing about AQ status - was that the conference was guaranteed to be picked for at least one of the bowls.

AQ status is gone as of 2014, it goes back to what it was before the BCS-AQ arrangement, and that's what a myopic old man like Neinas has missed. THe AQ status was entirely about revenue sharing, not bowl matchups.

The Orange Bowl would be the natural home for the Big East champ, but the ACC has destroyed that game, to the point where the Big East just might be better served to either build up a different existing Florida bowl game, or create a new one.

It's pretty sad - the Orange Bowl was once, not too long ago, a very, very good thing. That's the ACC for you though.

The big east has NYC for basketball post season, we need to get Florida back for football post season.

This isn't exactly a small minor detail - it's the difference between receiving over $20 million per year for a guaranteed auto bid for the conference champ in an elite bowl versus being sent to a pool and receiving little to no money with the conference champ going to a lower tier bowl. If what you're trying to say is that the Big East was the only conference that was truly affected by the elimination of AQ status, then I'd agree with you. The other power conferences have kept de facto AQ status with the Contract Bowls (and actually have something stronger than their old AQ status with the elimination of ranking requirements) and the non-AQ conferences obviously never had any AQ status to begin with. I don't think that this can be downplayed: the power conferences used to be defined as either AQ or non-AQ, but now they're going to be defined as either "contract" or "no contract", which means that having a Contract Bowl is critical.

Look at where Boise State got sent to during the last two years and the associated bowl payout. Two years straight, a top 10 team got sent to a bowl with a lower payout than what the 8th place Big Ten team received for the TicketCity.com Bowl that's likely going out of business in the next bowl cycle. It's foolish to think that guaranteed spots aren't important. Those guarantees are what provide the Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC market power even in the years when they aren't that great on the field (which is what college administrators care much more about than shooting the moon in the years where they are doing well on the field).

Plus, even though the Big East can create a new bowl game in theory, who is going to pay $40 million per conference in TV money (which is what the Big Ten, Pac-12, Big 12 and SEC are going to receive from their respective Contract Bowls and the ACC is going to get a similar amount)? Who is going to play the Big East in that game? Even if the Big East can make easy money from a bowl game, why wouldn't the Big Ten and SEC (and the other power conferences) just create their own bowl games amongst themselves (or at least take control of all of the media rights) that would surely be worth more in the marketplace than playing a Big East team? (Hint: that's exactly what the other power conferences are going to do. If you don't think that the Big Ten and SEC aren't going to be auctioning off their slate of bowl games on their own with the rest of the power conferences doing the same, then you haven't been paying attention. The Big Ten #2 vs. SEC #2 bowl game has garnered a higher rating than at least one BCS bowl game every single year for the past 5 seasons... and the Big Ten and SEC are already getting one $40 million payday from the "new" BCS-level Contract Bowls. You don't think that Delany and Slive are looking for multiple paydays of that nature? Delany and Slive haven't often been shown to be either (1) stupid or (2) out there to help out the little guy.)

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Frank,

Got a link for the assertion the ACC is going to get $40MM for its bowl? Last I saw, they didn't get a bid for it.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

In any event, ratings for the bowls are tanking. There are about 3 bowl games a year that do better than a Sweet 16 matchup from the NCAA Tournament, despite the fact that football significantly outdraws basketball during the regular season. People don't care about the bowl games, and fans are starting to walk. I have no idea how ESPN can afford that ticket for the Rose or Champions bowls, but they are going to take a bath on both in the next contract.

I don't think the bowl system makes it 10 years.

 

[frankthetank]

Appreciate the link. It all still confuses the heck out of me since it seems that in any given year, depending on who is hosting the playoffs and who makes the playoffs, the "at large" teams selected by the committee could vary significantly. For instance, if One semi-final pits the B1G v P12 at the Rose Bowl and the other pits the SEC v B12 at the Champions bowl (wherever it might be), the only contract bowl at that point would be the Orange Bowl with the ACC, right? That is, assuming the Orange Bowl is a contract bowl?

Take the opposite situation with a B1G v SEC in one semi-final at the Cotton Bowl and a P12 v ACC team at the Fiesta Bowl. Five of the remaining spots would be taken by "contracts" leaving three "at large" selections. Is that right?

You're correct. The way that it is set up on paper right now, there could be quite a bit of variance in the number of non-semifinal slots in a given year and depending upon who is hosting the semifinals.

My impression is that we're going to see one Contract Bowl host a semifinal each year and then one Access Bowl host a semifinal, with a 3-year rotation. That way, it's fairly even in terms of the distribution of teams each year (so you won't end up with the Rose and Champions hosting semifinals at the same time). It also sets the Orange Bowl very nicely because (from what I've heard) their likely contractual opponent for the ACC champ will be from a pool of Notre Dame, the Big Ten, SEC and Big 12. With an evenly distributed 3-year rotation, that means that when the Orange Bowl isn't a semifinal game, it's going to have access to at least one of the #1 selections (meaning the top selection outside of the semifinals) from the Big Ten, SEC and/or Big 12 every year (because whenever the Orange isn't a semifinal, that means either the Rose or the Champions is hosting a semifinal and they will release their contractual tie-ins to the Orange in those particular years accordingly). I know that anything positive about the ACC likely won't be popular here, but the reality is that the ACC isn't going to have any issues with the quality of their Orange Bowl opponent under this format despite a lot of speculation/hope to the contrary.