7th access bowl unlikely

forevereagle · October 24, 2012

A proposed seventh access bowl is becoming less likely and the commissioners of the BCS might stick with their original plan of only having six in the new playoff format, sources told ESPN.

After the commissioners met in Rosemont, Ill., in September, The Associated Press reported that they had discussed the possibility of creating a seventh access bowl. The game would give smaller conferences guaranteed access, pitting the top-ranked champion from the five non-power conferences (Big East, Mountain West, Conference USA, Mid-American and Sun Belt) annually against a team from either the Big 12 or Pac-12.

Full Story.

Anyone else not surprised?

Harry · October 24, 2012

I'm not surprised that the power conferences don't want to split the pie to help subsidize the lower conference bowl game. But I think they will HAVE to or face intense political and other scrutiny...plus it hurts their product. No one wants to lose the Boise State underdog story... simply put, if the bowls won't pony up the funds to make #7 fly it will have to be subsidized by them or they will be back to where they started from politically before, ie every senator/congressman that represents a school in the Beast, Mountain West C-USA etc will say it is unfair... if there is not a 7th bowl it IS unfair because schools in the lessor conferences won't have a chance to be in the top 6 unless they have miracle seasons and even then the top bowls are locked into the top conferences.

the potential problem is as I see it, if they can get away with it by stalling tactics -- they may not move on this until you have a scenario where Boise or someone else goes undefeated all season and still is not allowed into one of the top bowls when there is public and political outcry...

trussbussdad · October 24, 2012

Win and it takes care of itself

forevereagle · October 24, 2012

Win and it takes care of itself

Does it? It seems that, under the new system, no matter how much we win, it will not be possible for us to participate in one of the big bowls. Under the current structure, the carrot of getting to play in a BCS bowl was there. Now it isn't there. Either way, we have to improve before this is a real issue for us.

CurveItAround · October 24, 2012

Does it? It seems that, under the new system, no matter how much we win, it will not be possible for us to participate in one of the big bowls. Under the current structure, the carrot of getting to play in a BCS bowl was there. Now it isn't there. Either way, we have to improve before this is a real issue for us.

Let's try it, winning consistently, and see what happens.

Edited October 26, 2012 by CurveItAround

golfingomez · October 24, 2012

yeah... let's worry about getting to a bowl game, then posting a ten win season, then knocking off some top dogs, then going undefeated before we get caught up in playing for a national championship

shaft · October 25, 2012

I don't view this as a big guy vs little guy issue.

Under the new system every school has a shot at the national title, they just need to rank in the top 4. Wht get mad that 5-12 get to plat in high dollar bowls under traditional contracts.

Edited October 25, 2012 by shaft

aztecskin · October 25, 2012

I don't view this as a big guy vs little guy issue.
Under the new system every school has a shot at the national title, they just need to rank in the top 4. I get mad that 5-12 get to p,ay in high dollar bowls under traditional contracts.

Hard to rank in the top 4 if you are a little guy.

forevereagle · October 25, 2012

Let's try it and see what happens.

Yes please.

I don't view this as a big guy vs little guy issue.
Under the new system every school has a shot at the national title, they just need to rank in the top 4. I get mad that 5-12 get to p,ay in high dollar bowls under traditional contracts.

I don't see how it is not. They "couldn't make it work" to include one team from five conferences and an additional team from the big 5. So basically, they have taken away the opportunity. Sure, in theory, one of the teams from the "little guy" conferences could make it. In reality, a selection committee could easily decide that a one (or two) loss team from one of the big 5 is better than the undefeated team from any of the other 5 conferences. I think it would take an absolutely amazing season to get the 4 seed in the playoff (if it can be called that). Good luck.

Hard to rank in the top 4 if you are a little guy.

This.

shaft · October 25, 2012

If you don't think a liitle guy can get ranked in the top 4, your problem is with the ranking systems not the bowls.

We have a two tiered post season. Tier one is a 4 team playoff that all schools have access to. Tier two is a traditional bowl system, where bowls have contracts with conferences.

forevereagle · October 25, 2012

If you don't think a liitle guy can get ranked in the top 4, your problem is with the ranking systems not the bowls.
We have a two tiered post season. Tier one is a 4 team playoff that all schools have access to. Tier two is a traditional bowl system, where bowls have contracts with conferences.

And by that logic, how can you be happy about this? The best that tier 2 has to offer is unavailable to us and others like us. And the ranking system is not really a problem in theory, but in practice has bias.

shaft · October 25, 2012

Umm, because bowls don't have at large bids? Because the debate is about access to the national title game and not the Big Bowl's payouts.

Why should the Cotton Bowl have to take a really hot MAC team?

Why would the smaller bowls sign with the mid majors if the conference doesn't have to honor their contracts? Why would a bowl take the 5th place CUSA team if they could take the 12th place SEC team.

A open access bowl format would hurt smaller schools more than it would help them.

forevereagle · October 26, 2012

Umm, because bowls don't have at large bids? Because the debate is about access to the national title game and not the Big Bowl's payouts.

The article was about the 7th access (additional BCS bowl game) not happening. This bowl would have guaranteed the best from the MAC, CUSA, SBC, Big East, or MWC a big time bowl. The national championship argument is secondary as getting into the 4 team playoff is now the only shot a non-major conference member can get a big bowl appearance.

Why should the Cotton Bowl have to take a really hot MAC team?

Utah, Boise, and TCU all proved that a team from a non-major conference can be competitive and deliver solid ratings for these bowls.

Why would the smaller bowls sign with the mid majors if the conference doesn't have to honor their contracts? Why would a bowl take the 5th place CUSA team if they could take the 12th place SEC team.

Not sure why this is material to the discussion.

A open access bowl format would hurt smaller schools more than it would help them.

True, and that is not what was proposed.

Edited October 26, 2012 by forevereagle

SilverEagle · October 26, 2012

I'm still shaking my head over the strong speculation that had it not been for our location, (the 5th largest media market in the nation), and our new state-of-the-art stadium, we probably would not have been invited to CUSA. We've first got to prove that we really deserved this invite, then we can worry about the unfairness of the national championship game.

Harry · October 26, 2012

I'm still shaking my head over the strong speculation that had it not been for our location, (the 5th largest media market in the nation), and our new state-of-the-art stadium, we probably would not have been invited to CUSA. We've first got to prove that we really deserved this invite, then we can worry about the unfairness of the national championship game.

I don't think anyone would dispute this Silver. I think the issue we have is, the "BCS" label was considered unfair and gave the money programs a big recruiting advantage because they could sell to recruits better access to more bowl games. So, they chose to remove that label with the new playoff system. The problem is - the top conferences have already locked into the top bowl games. So we are essentially right back where we were where greed is driving the decisions. A 7th game would provide more access to the other conferences and would allow our teams (not just North Texas but Boise, SMU, USM, BYU, etc) to play in a bowl game that is representative of the new system (whatever they decide to call it). The problem is, advertisers and sponsors don't want to pay as much money to ESPN networks etc for the 7th game. My solution is for the other bowls and conferences to pony up some buck to help subsidize the game and I think they will end up doing something like that especially if they will be allowed to have a team participate in it.

Arkstfan · October 26, 2012

I think the approach has been all wrong.

Back when the 5th bowl was approved to get better access, part of the deal was more money. One idea thrown out at the time was to go to an 8 bowl alignment. Rather than cutting WAC, MAC, MWC, Sun Belt, CUSA a check to shut our yaps and behave the idea was to create three new bowls under the BCS label that would take the five champions and have their pick of the best remaining team from an AQ conference that didn't have two teams in the BCS.

The check that would have been cut to each conference would have become part of the bowl payout. So if Las Vegas was in and was the "first pick" second tier BCS bowl they would have whatever payout they could afford plus about $2.5 million per team. If Liberty was second they would have whatever plus about $2 million per team, and if say TicketCity was #3 they would have their payout plus about $1.5 million.

First selection bowl would get its pick of non-AQ champs plus anyone from a league w/o two teams in. Then down the line until everyone was accomodated. If a non-AQ champ met the criteria to be in a top-tier, they could be replaced by any school from a league that hadn't had two teams selected regardless of AQ or non-AQ.

Thompson and Bankowsky opposed that idea, The six AQ weren't crazy about it but it wasn't going to cost them dollars. Once CUSA and MWC said no the deal was dead.

Then the next idea to come down the pike was to have a "play-in" game. The two highest rated non-AQ champions that hadn't qualified to be selected would play that weekend for a slot in a BCS game with the next two playing the early game just for the heck of it to make it a TV doubleheader. Fox was committed guaranteeing $5 million to $8 million for just the TV rights to the two games depending on whether it would be held the first Saturday in December (low number) or the second Saturday (high number). CUSA and MWC weren't interested.

The money isn't what matters even if it is nice to have. Access and eroding the labels is what matters.

Denia Park Pedro · October 26, 2012

None of these plans do anything to change the fundamental fact of what college football has always been. You try to win your conference and if you have a decent enough season you get invited to play in a fun, but essentially meaningless, exhibition game somewhere. All the BCS and these new plans did/will do is incorporate some arbitrary opinion polls into selecting who plays in what exhibition game. With the four team "playoff" you still have the arbitrary opinion polls deciding essentially everything. Any team can be shut out for any or no reason. Undefeated SBC team? Sorry, this one loss Big 12 team is more worthy. Why? Because we said so, that's why.

We will have a real national champion in college football when every team, from Alabama to FAU, knows, from the day they first put on pads, if they do X they will be national champions. It doesn't matter what X is, as long as there are objective criteria. Until that happens it's try to win your conference plus some exhibition games and arbitrary opinion polls. It's still fun, but nobody should pretend it's anything other than what it is.

Harry · October 26, 2012

I think the approach has been all wrong.

Back when the 5th bowl was approved to get better access, part of the deal was more money. One idea thrown out at the time was to go to an 8 bowl alignment. Rather than cutting WAC, MAC, MWC, Sun Belt, CUSA a check to shut our yaps and behave the idea was to create three new bowls under the BCS label that would take the five champions and have their pick of the best remaining team from an AQ conference that didn't have two teams in the BCS.

The check that would have been cut to each conference would have become part of the bowl payout. So if Las Vegas was in and was the "first pick" second tier BCS bowl they would have whatever payout they could afford plus about $2.5 million per team. If Liberty was second they would have whatever plus about $2 million per team, and if say TicketCity was #3 they would have their payout plus about $1.5 million.

First selection bowl would get its pick of non-AQ champs plus anyone from a league w/o two teams in. Then down the line until everyone was accomodated. If a non-AQ champ met the criteria to be in a top-tier, they could be replaced by any school from a league that hadn't had two teams selected regardless of AQ or non-AQ.

Thompson and Bankowsky opposed that idea, The six AQ weren't crazy about it but it wasn't going to cost them dollars. Once CUSA and MWC said no the deal was dead.

Then the next idea to come down the pike was to have a "play-in" game. The two highest rated non-AQ champions that hadn't qualified to be selected would play that weekend for a slot in a BCS game with the next two playing the early game just for the heck of it to make it a TV doubleheader. Fox was committed guaranteeing $5 million to $8 million for just the TV rights to the two games depending on whether it would be held the first Saturday in December (low number) or the second Saturday (high number). CUSA and MWC weren't interested.

The money isn't what matters even if it is nice to have. Access and eroding the labels is what matters.

You are right. Before we had "well we are a BCS school and they are not.." now it will change to, "we have a chance to win the national championship (because our conference is locked into the top bowl games) and they do not.." What's the difference? It's just semantics.

forevereagle · October 26, 2012

None of these plans do anything to change the fundamental fact of what college football has always been. You try to win your conference and if you have a decent enough season you get invited to play in a fun, but essentially meaningless, exhibition game somewhere. All the BCS and these new plans did/will do is incorporate some arbitrary opinion polls into selecting who plays in what exhibition game. With the four team "playoff" you still have the arbitrary opinion polls deciding essentially everything. Any team can be shut out for any or no reason. Undefeated SBC team? Sorry, this one loss Big 12 team is more worthy. Why? Because we said so, that's why.
We will have a real national champion in college football when every team, from Alabama to FAU, knows, from the day they first put on pads, if they do X they will be national champions. It doesn't matter what X is, as long as there are objective criteria. Until that happens it's try to win your conference plus some exhibition games and arbitrary opinion polls. It's still fun, but nobody should pretend it's anything other than what it is.

Yep, but it would be nice if we could score a meaningless exhibition game that had a large payout.

CurveItAround · October 26, 2012

For clarity, when a team goes to a post season bowl, the money that is earned from that bowl goes to the conference and then all the teams split all the bowl money earned by the conference. The more teams that go to a bowl, the more everybody makes, and vice versa. So when the non power 5 conferences are not given the opportunity to qualify for the big bowls, it really is about the money.

When one team from a non power 5 conference makes a BCS bowl and earns $14mm for the conference, and the conference TV deal is $1mm per school, it is a windfall for the teams in the conference.

Edited October 26, 2012 by CurveItAround