Smoke your cigars and enjoy the band while you can....

[Panjandrum]

The whole champions bowl seemed like a posturing power play that was more about the relationship than it was about the actual game. The way it sounds to me is that we no longer have a BCS, but rather a partnership of 6 six bowls to rotate as national semifinals.  The other 4 bowls every year will be able to do whatever they want.  I'm guessing they will come up with some sort of model with contingencies such as "in years that the Rose Bowl is a semifinal the Fiesta Bowl will use an at-large select the Pac-12 champion (or next best) team and the Sugar will use an at-large to select the Big-10 champion (or next best) team."  Same with the Cotton Bowl and the Big12/Fiesta and SEC/Sugar.     

I think you're right and that's probably the way it will go down.

I haven't had time to read everything yet, so I'm curious as to whether or not the other four BCS bowls will have a standard payout like they do now (18 million a piece) or if they'll individually define what that payout will be since they'll be able to pick whoever again.

Based on what I read in the previous weeks, the BCS is gone, and all that really exists is this four team playoff.  Everything else is back to pre-1998.  True?

[TheHamburglar]

Pan, that's how I read it.  It sounds like they already have a revenue distribution plan in place, but just haven't said it publicly.  I don't know how the plan could include all 6 bowls every year at this point, it only has to be those 2+1NC.  Also, I would think the Capital One Bowl would have to be the front runner for the 6th bowl, with the Alamo a distant 2nd (assuming the Cotton is in).  I know letting the other 4 bowls do their own thing 2 out of 3 years sounds like a logistical nightmare, but trying to add 2 more bowls to the mix on equal footing without a BCS standing metric and forcing them to break their traditional partnerships is a much, much larger nightmare.  Of the top of my head I can think of 5 or 6 additional problems if they tried to make the other 4 all even in their off years. 

If the bowls are able to make their own deals in their off years, there is no reason why the Big12-SEC would be able demand more money for the same product as if it was rolled into the Cotton.  At this point, they'd be able to negotiate with Jerry to let him take $1-2MM off the top to produce the bowl without having their TV contract lumped in with a shitty Orange Bowl and 2nd tier Capital One Bowl. 

The Big12/SEC are in a position of power now over the Cotton Bowl because I'm guessing Jerry wants it to be the Champions Bowl so bad.  They can negotiate with him so that rather "the bowl pays you XX amount to participate in our bowl" it becomes "the bowl gets to keep $XX amount for putting on the bowl plus consession revenue and conferences split the rest of the revenue".  All of the context clues add up to it being much, much easier for the conference to move to the existing Cotton Bowl and it becoming the 5th in the rotation.

[Panjandrum]

Pan, that's how I read it.  It sounds like they already have a revenue distribution plan in place, but just haven't said it publicly.  I don't know how the plan could include all 6 bowls every year at this point, it only has to be those 2+1NC.  Also, I would think the Capital One Bowl would have to be the front runner for the 6th bowl, with the Alamo a distant 2nd (assuming the Cotton is in).  I know letting the other 4 bowls do their own thing 2 out of 3 years sounds like a logistical nightmare, but trying to add 2 more bowls to the mix on equal footing without a BCS standing metric and forcing them to break their traditional partnerships is a much, much larger nightmare.  Of the top of my head I can think of 5 or 6 additional problems if they tried to make the other 4 all even in their off years. 

If the bowls are able to make their own deals in their off years, there is no reason why the Big12-SEC would be able demand more money for the same product as if it was rolled into the Cotton.  At this point, they'd be able to negotiate with Jerry to let him take $1-2MM off the top to produce the bowl without having their TV contract lumped in with a shitty Orange Bowl and 2nd tier Capital One Bowl. 

The Big12/SEC are in a position of power now over the Cotton Bowl because I'm guessing Jerry wants it to be the Champions Bowl so bad.  They can negotiate with him so that rather "the bowl pays you XX amount to participate in our bowl" it becomes "the bowl gets to keep $XX amount for putting on the bowl plus consession revenue and conferences split the rest of the revenue".

No matter what happens with the Big 12/SEC Bowl, I hope it's on Fox.  I like the idea of having it on a broadcast network as opposed to ESPN for some reason.

Also, the Cotton Bowl broadcast was really pretty great, and this would increase the chance Gus calls the game, which would just be amazing.

If they could work it out with the Sugar Bowl to have the same arrangement, that may be a nice way to have it in pretty much the same general area every year, and we could mix it up a bit.

So, in years that the Cotton Bowl is in the rotation for the playoff, the Sugar functions as our "Champions Bowl" and vice versa.

[Pete]

No matter what those eff sticks decide about the 6 bowls that constitute the 3 playoff games and the 3 "you almost made the playoff games," we will still have our "Champions Bowl" with the SEC.....WHICH will be populated by the best team from each of our conferences that did not make 3 playoff games.....

....the only unclear thing is whether the Big 12 and SEC will send their "next best teams" to the Champions Bowl instead of the 3 "you almost make the playoff games" bowls.

We are NOT sharing the Champions Bowl in the rotation with those eff sticks, and we are not sharing it with other conferences, even if our top teams go elsewhere.  We are bidding the thing out, and keeping all the money.  Those other bowls have huge bowl bureaucracies that siphon off the money.

Again, the only question is whether we send teams to the Champions Bowl ahead of the 3 "you almost made the playoff games" bowls.

[TheHamburglar]

I've been reading a few articles the last 30 minutes and now it looks like that 400MM-500MM number being floated is for the 6 bowls+NC game together, not just 2+1.  It that happens, now we are effectively back to 5 AQ conferences and all others.  Either they are all going off the same source and are missing something or this is about to become a huge logistical nightmare/bidding war to get in to the 6.  Anyway, now I'm more  because the BBSing potential of bowls bidding to get into this thing is phenominal. 

Edit: After reading Pete's post, this is going to be even better than I thought.  I still think we just move it to the Cotton, but force Jerry to reorganize it on our terms without the bowl bureaucracies bullshit.  Does Jerry/SEC/Big12 then take say "eff being in the Big6, we'll do our own thing and bid for the NC every couple of years on top of it"?  This is going to be fun. 

[SkinnyBenny]

RE Pan's thoughts on hoping for Fox instead of ESPN:

Gus! 

Erin Brockavich: 

No coverage whatsoever before, during, or after the game on ESPN despite having a game between the #6 and #8-ranked teams:

But.......Gus! 

[steve dave]

would prefer ESPN, ABC, CBS to FOX.  FOX probably better than NBC though. 

[SkinnyBenny]

yeah, lol at nbc

[Pete]

I've been reading a few articles the last 30 minutes and now it looks like that 400MM-500MM number being floated is for the 6 bowls+NC game together, not just 2+1.  It that happens, now we are effectively back to 5 AQ conferences and all others.  Either they are all going off the same source and are missing something or this is about to become a huge logistical nightmare/bidding war to get in to the 6.  Anyway, now I'm more  because the BBSing potential of bowls bidding to get into this thing is phenominal. 

Edit: After reading Pete's post, this is going to be even better than I thought.  I still think we just move it to the Cotton, but force Jerry to reorganize it on our terms without the bowl bureaucracies bullshit.  Does Jerry/SEC/Big12 then take say "eff being in the Big6, we'll do our own thing and bid for the NC every couple of years on top of it"?  This is going to be fun.

I am just hoping that it pays such ridic money that unless our best teams are in the top 4, we just say "eff you" and send our best teams to the Champions Bowl....

...OR, even better....

We STILL get ridic money for the Champions Bowl even if the Champions Bowl gets the best remaining left overs after "Big 6" takes their picks.


If the Big 12 and SEC both put 2 teams into the Big 6 bowls, there would still be a lot of money in SEC #3 versus Big 12 #3, IMO.

[TheHamburglar]

would prefer ESPN, ABC, CBS to FOX.  FOX probably better than NBC though.

When FOX had the BCS it was terrible.  Just awful.  They kept trotting Chris Rose out there to do a toned down version of this shtick for pregame/halftime/postgame.  Also, maybe this is just me, but the way FOX broadcasts their sporting events always looks less clear to me.  I've thought this ever since they started doing baseball playoffs in the 90s.  I don't know if its their standard way of configuring their cameras, but they always look like the teams are playing in a very slight haze. 

I didn't watch the Cotton Bowl on TV, but even this past year's BigTen and Pac-12 games looked that way.  During the BigTen game I was switching back and forth between it and the OU-OSU game and even mrs.hamburglar said "that one (the BigTen CCG) looks like crap, is there something wrong with our TV?"  For that reason alone I don't want FOX. 

[Pete]

Some media type needs to get to the bottom of this Champions Bowl business.

Who wants it most?

[michigancat]

the cotton bowl broadcast was big-time. eff what ya herd.

Wish regular Fox had more CFB on regular Fox.

[michigancat]

did anyone see the Wolken/Swaim stuff? My god LOL.

Greg Swaim ?@GSwaim
Don't be surprised if the #Pac12 adds four teams east of the Mississippi.

Dan Wolken ?@DanWolken
Enough already. That's ludicrous. RT @GSwaim: Don't be surprised if the #Pac12 adds four teams east of the Mississippi.

Greg Swaim ?@GSwaim
"@OKPreps: @DanWolken should know better. RT "@GSwaim: Love reading misquotes about what I said, but it's Twitter!!"" // Who's @DanWolken?

Dan Wolken ?@DanWolken
@GSwaim Pull the tape from March 25, 2011 when I appeared on your show to talk about college hoop coaching carousel, in case you forgot.

Dan Wolken ?@DanWolken
@GSwaim Nice act, Greg. You know very well who I am, given you've asked me to come on your radio show multiple times.

Greg Swaim ?@GSwaim
@DanWolken Looks like you did. Guess I forgot.

Greg Swaim ?@GSwaim
@THE_natedogg @DanWolken No fight, just didn't know who he was. We have nealry a thousand guests in a year, and he was on in March 2011.

Greg Swaim ?@GSwaim
My applogies to @DanWolken. Just went and read his stuff...good guy, I just didn't remember...we have a lot of guests.

[steve dave]

 

[KITNfury]

Damn, Swaim just big timed Wolken hard.

[Trim]

Swaim's planning on doing his show or something from a bar in aggieville when OSU plays in MHK this year.  goEMAW really has to get involved in that.

[sonofdaxjones]

Brando on Finebaum thinks the new "playoff" will drive Texas (and OU) to wanting to add 2 more teams and get a championship game again . . . don't quite understand the logic.   But he based on the fact that just before the SEC put  in a championship game, guys like Gene Stallings and others b_tched that the CCG would make it almost impossible for an SEC to win a MNC, when in fact the exact opposite has happened.

[steve dave]

the best team in the big 12 will make the 4 every year.  sometimes the best two.  a ccg isn't going to change that imo.  in fact, the only scenario I can see where the b12 doesn't get a spot is the best team in a very down year losing the ccg to some garbage team. 

[Panjandrum]

the best team in the big 12 will make the 4 every year.  sometimes the best two.  a ccg isn't going to change that imo.  in fact, the only scenario I can see where the b12 doesn't get a spot is the best team in a very down year losing the ccg to some garbage team.

Completely agree except I wonder if there would ever be a scenario where they say, "Well, this team is 12-1 and this team is 11-1, and the team with the CCG had one more quality win," or something like that.

Maybe the round robin cancels that out, but you never know who will be on the selection committee and make that decision.

[TheHamburglar]

the best team in the big 12 will make the 4 every year.  sometimes the best two.  a ccg isn't going to change that imo.  in fact, the only scenario I can see where the b12 doesn't get a spot is the best team in a very down year losing the ccg to some garbage team.

With the human selection committee and weight given to conference champions, the selection thought process is going to go the following way, whether they do it on purpose or subconsciously:

1. Who are the winners of the BigTen, Big12, SEC, and Pac-12.  Those 4 are the baseline.  Rank those 4 teams.
2. Who won the ACC and is that team undefeated?  Compare this team against team #4 above.  If ACC team deserves it more than #4 on the list, replace them.  Repeat with #3 on list, then #2 and #1 if deserving.
3.  Who took 2nd in the SEC?  Is there a better SEC team that didn't make their championship game? Repeat Step 2 with this SEC team.
4.  Who took 2nd in the BigTen/SEC/Big12?  Repeat Step 2 with this team.  If you can't clearly make a case for this team over a team already on the list, the team on the list stays.
5.  Are there any other teams who are deserving of being considered (must be an undefeated/1-loss ND or an other undefeated team).  If so, repeat step 2 with those teams until all deserving teams have been considered.  If you can't clearly make a case for this team over a team already on the list, the team on the list stays.

This is why I agree with SD.  90% of years the Big12 champ won't be as low #4 starting on that list.  In years where the Big12 champ stars out #3 on the list it would take an undefeated ACC team AND a 1-loss SEC team to not win the SEC to knock them out.  This is why 90% of the time the Big12 will have a team in and people are spending hours wasting their time trying to figure out if we need a CCG for 1 out of 10 years to maybe help out if needed.  Every year the committee will automatically put the Big12 champ in unless 1-2 other non-power champs are undefeated and clearly better, which would require the Big12 champ to have 2-3 losses and winning a Conf. Champ game over another 9-3 team wouldn't help anyway.   

[steve dave]

And that doesn't even consider the times a ccg loss hurts our team

[CyberToothCat]

the best team in the big 12 will make the 4 every year.  sometimes the best two.  a ccg isn't going to change that imo.  in fact, the only scenario I can see where the b12 doesn't get a spot is the best team in a very down year losing the ccg to some garbage team.

With the human selection committee and weight given to conference champions, the selection thought process is going to go the following way, whether they do it on purpose or subconsciously:

1. Who are the winners of the BigTen, Big12, SEC, and Pac-12.  Those 4 are the baseline.  Rank those 4 teams.
2. Who won the ACC and is that team undefeated?  Compare this team against team #4 above.  If ACC team deserves it more than #4 on the list, replace them.  Repeat with #3 on list, then #2 and #1 if deserving.
3.  Who took 2nd in the SEC?  Is there a better SEC team that didn't make their championship game? Repeat Step 2 with this SEC team.
4.  Who took 2nd in the BigTen/SEC/Big12?  Repeat Step 2 with this team.  If you can't clearly make a case for this team over a team already on the list, the team on the list stays.
5.  Are there any other teams who are deserving of being considered (must be an undefeated/1-loss ND or an other undefeated team).  If so, repeat step 2 with those teams until all deserving teams have been considered.  If you can't clearly make a case for this team over a team already on the list, the team on the list stays.

This is why I agree with SD.  90% of years the Big12 champ won't be as low #4 starting on that list.  In years where the Big12 champ stars out #3 on the list it would take an undefeated ACC team AND a 1-loss SEC team to not win the SEC to knock them out.  This is why 90% of the time the Big12 will have a team in and people are spending hours wasting their time trying to figure out if we need a CCG for 1 out of 10 years to maybe help out if needed.  Every year the committee will automatically put the Big12 champ in unless 1-2 other non-power champs are undefeated and clearly better, which would require the Big12 champ to have 2-3 losses and winning a Conf. Champ game over another 9-3 team wouldn't help anyway.

You're assuming that all 11-1 Big 12 championship teams will be treated equally by the committee.  If K-State wins the Big 12 with an 11-1 record with a loss to TCU, we will absolutely NOT be looked at the same way as an 11-1 OU team whose only loss was TCU.  That OU team would certainly be in the playoffs, while that KSU team will be in only if the committee can't find some more worthy teams somewhere else.

I mean, imagine the following scenario, which doesn't seem too far-fetched.  Florida runs the table in the SEC, but gets upset in the CCG by LSU.  Both teams are 12-1.  FSU wins the ACC with a 12-1 record, and their only loss was the matchup with Florida.  OSU knocks off Nebraska to win the big 10 and finish 12-1.  USC gets back to pre-infractions level and also finishes 12-1 as the PAC champs.  OU is 11-1.  There are zero teams with no losses, but there are six high-quality teams with only one loss.

Does OU get in?  I think yes.  I think that LSU, Ohio St, USC and OU would be the four teams.  In that same scenario if K-State is 11-1 instead of OU, I think K-State gets shut out.  I think that LSU, Ohio St, USC and Florida would be the four teams, and I would not be at all shocked if the committee regarded K-State as #6 in that group also behind FSU.

[steve dave]

lol at KState fans

[stobblebobby]

the best team in the big 12 will make the 4 every year.  sometimes the best two.  a ccg isn't going to change that imo.  in fact, the only scenario I can see where the b12 doesn't get a spot is the best team in a very down year losing the ccg to some garbage team.

With the human selection committee and weight given to conference champions, the selection thought process is going to go the following way, whether they do it on purpose or subconsciously:

1. Who are the winners of the BigTen, Big12, SEC, and Pac-12.  Those 4 are the baseline.  Rank those 4 teams.
2. Who won the ACC and is that team undefeated?  Compare this team against team #4 above.  If ACC team deserves it more than #4 on the list, replace them.  Repeat with #3 on list, then #2 and #1 if deserving.
3.  Who took 2nd in the SEC?  Is there a better SEC team that didn't make their championship game? Repeat Step 2 with this SEC team.
4.  Who took 2nd in the BigTen/SEC/Big12?  Repeat Step 2 with this team.  If you can't clearly make a case for this team over a team already on the list, the team on the list stays.
5.  Are there any other teams who are deserving of being considered (must be an undefeated/1-loss ND or an other undefeated team).  If so, repeat step 2 with those teams until all deserving teams have been considered.  If you can't clearly make a case for this team over a team already on the list, the team on the list stays.

This is why I agree with SD.  90% of years the Big12 champ won't be as low #4 starting on that list.  In years where the Big12 champ stars out #3 on the list it would take an undefeated ACC team AND a 1-loss SEC team to not win the SEC to knock them out.  This is why 90% of the time the Big12 will have a team in and people are spending hours wasting their time trying to figure out if we need a CCG for 1 out of 10 years to maybe help out if needed.  Every year the committee will automatically put the Big12 champ in unless 1-2 other non-power champs are undefeated and clearly better, which would require the Big12 champ to have 2-3 losses and winning a Conf. Champ game over another 9-3 team wouldn't help anyway.

You're assuming that all 11-1 Big 12 championship teams will be treated equally by the committee.  If K-State wins the Big 12 with an 11-1 record with a loss to TCU, we will absolutely NOT be looked at the same way as an 11-1 OU team whose only loss was TCU.  That OU team would certainly be in the playoffs, while that KSU team will be in only if the committee can't find some more worthy teams somewhere else.

I mean, imagine the following scenario, which doesn't seem too far-fetched.  Florida runs the table in the SEC, but gets upset in the CCG by LSU.  Both teams are 12-1.  FSU wins the ACC with a 12-1 record, and their only loss was the matchup with Florida.  OSU knocks off Nebraska to win the big 10 and finish 12-1.  USC gets back to pre-infractions level and also finishes 12-1 as the PAC champs.  OU is 11-1.  There are zero teams with no losses, but there are six high-quality teams with only one loss.

Does OU get in?  I think yes.  I think that LSU, Ohio St, USC and OU would be the four teams.  In that same scenario if K-State is 11-1 instead of OU, I think K-State gets shut out.  I think that LSU, Ohio St, USC and Florida would be the four teams, and I would not be at all shocked if the committee regarded K-State as #6 in that group also behind FSU.

I'm fairly certain by the number of X-1's in there it was the scenario we're all thinking about, but honestly dnr.

I can be as butthurty as butthurt kstate fans get, but the main reason I see it going to 8 is if a team like KSU (or any other similar) gets in the 4 when those good ole' boys in the SEC make the argument that their team with one more loss is "clearly better", it will cause a riot. I don't necessarily see this totally bending over KSU, but I do see it influencing the committee when it comes to selection.

SEC riot vs. KSU butthurt: push. That's optimistic.

Committee will try its best to maintain legitimacy and a semblance of non-bias, which helps us, but in the end there's no way 4 is enough.

[steve dave]

Moral of the story, the top two teams get in every year. We may as well keep extending it for the very next butthurt team that gets left out until we include every single rough ridin' team in it. Stfu KState fan, you have never been screwed over for anything that mattered.