BCS 2.0 will be 6 bowls, with guaranteed spot for highest Big East/non-AQ

[huskymedic]

http://espn.go.com/college-football...ootball-playoffs-six-access-bowls-sources-say

Independants not included in "Group of 5"

 

[FDNY99]

What I want to know is where is ND's seat at this table...or did they get left out?

 

[huskymedic]

What I want to know is where is ND's seat at this table...or did they get left out?

NickCarparelli 4:43pm via Twitter for iPhone
RT @slmandel: Independents not considered part of Group of 5, not guaranteed access. Will be picked for a host bowl if ranked high enough.

 

[ZooCougar]

I wonder if this is what ultimately pushes them into a conference.

 

[uconNYC]

Can someone please clarify all this for me. So there will be 4 teams in the semifinals/finals and then a further 12 teams in the 6 access bowls?

 

[huskymedic]

I wonder if this is what ultimately pushes them into a conference.

DanWolken 4:10pm via Twitter for iPhone
If BYU doesn't join the Big East under this setup, they're just being stubborn

 

[ZooCougar]

DanWolken 4:10pm via Twitter for iPhone
If BYU doesn't join the Big East under this setup, they're just being stubborn

Under this framework, it makes even more sense for Notre Dame to join the Big East than it does for the ACC.

 

[BG79]

I don't get this. Why would BYU need to join the Big East under this format? Seems to me this basically puts the Big East in the same breath as MAC, MWC, CUSA, and Sun Belt, am I wrong?

 

[Jax Husky]

I don't get this. Why would BYU need to join the Big East under this format? Seems to me this basically puts the Big East in the same breath as MAC, MWC, CUSA, and Sun Belt, am I wrong?

Sort of, but it puts the Big East at the top of that list of conferences. It also means BYU would have almost no shot at one of the "BCS" bowls without playing in a conference. ND may be able to get byin that format, but not BYU.

 

[huskymedic]

Can someone please clarify all this for me. So there will be 4 teams in the semifinals/finals and then a further 12 teams in the 6 access bowls?

Try this...

Official BCS release
Presidents and Commissioners Announce Final Agreement on Playoff Structure

Four-Team Playoff Moves Forward On Schedule, with Agreement Reached on Revenues and Format

Denver, CO - The BCS Presidential Advisory Committee and the Group of Commissioners today unanimously approved additional details to implement the new four-team playoff for college football’s post-season, beginning as scheduled in the 2014-2015 season.

In the group’s first meeting since June 26th in Washington, D.C., unanimous agreement was reached to:

· Lock-in a four team seeded playoff. The teams that will play will be chosen by a selection committee.

· Create three “contract bowls” and three “host bowls” as part of the post-season format. The highest-ranked champion from the five conferences that are not in contract bowls will be guaranteed a spot in a host bowl.

· Share revenue, for the first time in college football history, based on academic performance as part of the funding formula.

· Share revenue with a higher portion of revenues going to the conferences of the four teams that qualify for the playoff and participate in the other games. Distributions will also be made to conferences whose teams don’t qualify for either a contract or host bowl. Since the new format is projected to be so popular, there will be more revenue for all conferences and independent institutions.

· Move forward to complete a television rights agreement for the new format.

· Begin hiring staff so the new structure can begin operating.

“Today’s meeting is a unanimous ratification of what we announced last June in Washington, D.C., said Charles Steger, the Chairman of the Presidential Oversight Committee. “I’m delighted that additional details have been resolved and that everything is on track so fans can enjoy the post-season they’ve been asking for. College football, with its great regular season, is strong and popular – it’s about to get stronger and more popular.”

“This format is good for college football in both the short-term and long-term and I think it’s great for the game,” said Bill Hancock, the Executive Director of the BCS. “The four-team playoff will be wonderfully popular and because fans can’t get enough college football, the other bowls will benefit too. I’m proud of how everyone came together and that agreement has been reached.”
Additional details, such as the name of the new structure, details of the selection committee, and location for the first playoff games, including the championship game, remain to be announced.

 

[huskymedic]

New college football playoff includes access for Big East champion

If the Big East champion is the top-ranked champion among the Mountain West, Conference USA, Sun Belt and Mid-American Conferences, it will be assured a spot in one of college football's top six bowl games when the new playoff structure takes hold in 2014.

Boise State joins the Big East in 2013. In 2013, the Big East champion is assured of a spot in the BCS.

In 2014, the Big East champion (or the highest-ranked champion from one of the other leagues) will be assured of a spot in one of three "host bowls." Those games are expected to be the Fiesta Bowl outside Phoenix, the Cotton Bowl outside of Dallas and the Chick-Fil-A Bowl in Atlanta.

If this system had been in place in the past (and using the BCS Standings for the rankings), a team from the Big East would've been the highest-ranked team of the five conference champions in seven of the last nine years:
2011: Boise State (No. 7); Highest non-Big East: Southern Miss (No. 21)
2010: Boise State (No. 10); Highest non-Big East: Hawaii (No. 23)
2009: Cincinnati (No. 3); Highest non-Big East: None in top 25
2008: Boise State (No. 9); Highest-non Big East: Ball State (No. 22)
2007: Hawaii (No. 10); Highest Big East: South Florida (No. 21)
2006: Louisville (No. 6); Highest non-Big East: None in top 25
2005: Louisville (No. 19); Highest non-Big East: None in top 25
2004: Boise State (No. 9); Highest non-Big East: None in top 25
2003: Miami (Ohio) (No. 11); Highest Big East: Boise State (No. 17)

A Big East team is also eligible for the four-team playoff if chosen by a selection committee.

Read more here: http://voices.idahostatesman.com/20...cludes_access_big_east_champion#storylink=cpy

 

[BlueMAB]

New college football playoff includes access for Big East champion

If the Big East champion is the top-ranked champion among the Mountain West, Conference USA, Sun Belt and Mid-American Conferences, it will be assured a spot in one of college football's top six bowl games when the new playoff structure takes hold in 2014.

Boise State joins the Big East in 2013. In 2013, the Big East champion is assured of a spot in the BCS.

In 2014, the Big East champion (or the highest-ranked champion from one of the other leagues) will be assured of a spot in one of three "host bowls." Those games are expected to be the Fiesta Bowl outside Phoenix, the Cotton Bowl outside of Dallas and the Chick-Fil-A Bowl in Atlanta.

If this system had been in place in the past (and using the BCS Standings for the rankings), a team from the Big East would've been the highest-ranked team of the five conference champions in seven of the last nine years:
2011: Boise State (No. 7); Highest non-Big East: Southern Miss (No. 21)
2010: Boise State (No. 10); Highest non-Big East: Hawaii (No. 23)
2009: Cincinnati (No. 3); Highest non-Big East: None in top 25
2008: Boise State (No. 9); Highest-non Big East: Ball State (No. 22)
2007: Hawaii (No. 10); Highest Big East: South Florida (No. 21)
2006: Louisville (No. 6); Highest non-Big East: None in top 25
2005: Louisville (No. 19); Highest non-Big East: None in top 25
2004: Boise State (No. 9); Highest non-Big East: None in top 25
2003: Miami (Ohio) (No. 11); Highest Big East: Boise State (No. 17)

A Big East team is also eligible for the four-team playoff if chosen by a selection committee.

Read more here: http://voices.idahostatesman.com/20...cludes_access_big_east_champion#storylink=cpy

Isn't that misleading since Boise State wasn't in the Big East?

If the format were in place, the Big East would have had a BCS representative only 3 times. Cincy, and Louisville twice.

Boise State would have taken the spot 4 times as a member of the MWC.

Competitively, Boise State has very little reason to join the Big East. The money will hopefully be too much to pass up, but in terms of access, they should stay where they are.

 

[BlueMAB]

What I want to know is where is ND's seat at this table...or did they get left out?

They have access to the Orange Bowl via their association with the ACC.

I'm not sure where this leaves them when it comes to the playoffs, but I don't think anyone really thinks they will leave ND without a seat at the table.

 

[FDNY99]

Things could get VERY interesting for Swafford in the next season or two if FSU and ND are neck and neck for last of the final four spots. A some point now ND and it's fanbase has to realize that to guarantee a spot they need to join the ACC as a all sports member.

 

[huskymedic]

Isn't that misleading since Boise State wasn't in the Big East?

If the format were in place, the Big East would have had a BCS representative only 3 times. Cincy, and Louisville twice.

Boise State would have taken the spot 4 times as a member of the MWC.

Competitively, Boise State has very little reason to join the Big East. The money will hopefully be too much to pass up, but in terms of access, they should stay where they are.

I didn't write it... just sharing but I also read somewhere else (can't remember where) that since the BCS rankings the Big East champ would've been the highest ranked of those five conf champs 8 of the last 10 years.

 

[UConnDan97]

Isn't that misleading since Boise State wasn't in the Big East?

If the format were in place, the Big East would have had a BCS representative only 3 times. Cincy, and Louisville twice.

Boise State would have taken the spot 4 times as a member of the MWC.

Competitively, Boise State has very little reason to join the Big East. The money will hopefully be too much to pass up, but in terms of access, they should stay where they are.

It's not misleading at all. If you wish to look at it that way, then Miami (Fl) WAS in the Big East in 2003, and was ranked two spots higher than Miami (OH), so the spot is back again in the Big East's hands. I haven't looked up the rest, but I would be shocked if West Virginia didn't earn their way into one. I'm just too lazy to look them all up.

So essentially, one has to make a decision of whether or not to consider Big East teams at the time, or NNBE teams, and either way seems to come out favorably for the Big East...

 

[BlueMAB]

I didn't write it... just sharing but I also read somewhere else (can't remember where) that since the BCS rankings the Big East champ would've been the highest ranked of those five conf champs 8 of the last 10 years.

Just sharing that I think the article is misleading. Who knows where Boise would have finished if they played in the Big East those years. It's more accurate to point out the fact Boise St would have had more BCS appearances than the entire Big East under that format.

 

[huskymedic]

It's just easier to cut and paste some of this stuff...

JFowlerCBS 5:12pm via Web
Head still spinning on playoff format. Yours might be, too. Lot of clutter. Simplest form: Four-team playoff, and a bunch of big $ bowls

 

[Husky25]

Hmmmm. 4 team playoff, plus 6 "access" bowls (12 additional teams)? Who cares what it means for UConn's immediate future. We aren't even remotely close yet (Conference affiliation change or not).

Given that, I choose to look at it a different way...I read this to say depending on how much money the BCS makes in 2014-2016 (and believe me, it will be a pant load!!!), they give themselves the opportunity to bypass the logical 8 team tournement for a couple years and jump right to a 16 team playoff...Looks like the BCS will expand further than expected and probably faster as well.

 

[SubbaBub]

If I am interpreting this correctly, it looks to be the best realistic outcome for the BE. If ND has access to the Orange Bowl, they'll be happy to continue as an independent. The catch being that none of the remaining former Non-AQ teams rise up, Boise St like, to steal the spot in any given year. ULL is awfully close this year considering we have two 1-loss teams.

The other detail I'd need to know is if there is any minimum ranking required for the Gang of Five Champ. I don't think there is but, this would devalue the agreement for the BE. Decent job by the commish, here.

 

[BlueMAB]

It's not misleading at all. If you wish to look at it that way, then Miami (Fl) WAS in the Big East in 2003, and was ranked two spots higher than Miami (OH), so the spot is back again in the Big East's hands. I haven't looked up the rest, but I would be shocked if West Virginia didn't earn their way into one. I'm just too lazy to look them all up.

So essentially, one has to make a decision of whether or not to consider Big East teams at the time, or NNBE teams, and either way seems to come out favorably for the Big East...

Then that's what they should have done in order to not be misleading.

It's picking which schools to choose and which to exclude, but you can't include WVU and Miami along with Boise St, because Boise St wouldn't be in the Big East if Miami and WVU left. And if they were, they would have had to play WVU and Miami, and probably wouldn't have had the record they did. So, I'm sorry, but it's still pretty misleading.

Enjoy it if you want, I think stuff like that is just a waste of time because it replaces factual history with pretend history and makes assumptions that the results would have been the same. What's the point of that?

 

[BG79]

Sort of, but it puts the Big East at the top of that list of conferences. It also means BYU would have almost no shot at one of the "BCS" bowls without playing in a conference. ND may be able to get byin that format, but not BYU.

I believe ND has an in for the Orange Bowl. That one is ACC vs some stuff from big 12/SEC/ND according to that ESPN link.

I don't know how that format makes things any more difficult for BYU than it would for any Big East team. It's still who ranks the highest out of all the rest, if that's BYU wouldnt they get that spot regardless of what conference they're in or if they're independent still?

I just don't see this as good news, I see this as bad news as it's lumping us in with the scrub conferences despite teams in our conference having to play more difficult conference schedules. That might be reflected to some degree in the ranking format but a team with an undefeated record from the MWC is likely going to be ranked ahead of a Big East team that goes in with 2 or 3 losses but wins the conference.

 

[huskymedic]

Enjoy it if you want, I think stuff like that is just a waste of time because it replaces factual history with pretend history and makes assumptions that the results would have been the same. What's the point of that?

Isn't that 90% of the posts on the BY?

 

[BlueMAB]

Isn't that 90% of the posts on the BY?

Touche!

 

[huskymedic]

I believe ND has an in for the Orange Bowl. That one is ACC vs some stuff from big 12/SEC/ND according to that ESPN link.

I don't know how that format makes things any more difficult for BYU than it would for any Big East team. It's still who ranks the highest out of all the rest, if that's BYU wouldnt they get that spot regardless of what conference they're in or if they're independent still?

I just don't see this as good news, I see this as bad news as it's lumping us in with the scrub conferences despite teams in our conference having to play more difficult conference schedules. That might be reflected to some degree in the ranking format but a team with an undefeated record from the MWC is likely going to be ranked ahead of a Big East team that goes in with 2 or 3 losses but wins the conference.

Better than getting boxed out all together which is where we were heading into 2014?