(10-14-2016 11:24 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I can accept "... should have the best teams possible, from the contract conference".

I guess your concern is valid, but also kinda moot with only between 3 and 1 (like this year) access slots available per year. So the best teams are going to those regardless.

And I think it's a valid argument that CCG runner-up should mean something.

but like this year- Miami at #17 wouldn't be 1 of the best teams. I'm sorry, but Miami wouldn't deserve to go over say Nebraska. As it is, we'd already have Utah going at #21 due to Washington in the playoff.

Too bad. The Rose, Sugar, and Orange don't get to have their history and tradition stolen from them anymore, like the BCS did.

If the bowls won't accept the updated contract language, then it is what it is and the highest ranked team from the conference goes. But I think the conferences should push for it.

(10-14-2016 11:20 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 11:02 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I decree: each P5 conf conference should put it into the next round of contracts with the Rose, Sugar, and Orange bowls that the conference should have the right to nominate which team gets to go to the contract bowl, in years when the bowl is not part of the CFP and when the conf champ is in the CFP.

And if someone is worried about the conference selecting a wildcard team that "doesn't deserve to go", then you could word it so that the conference can only select between the highest ranked team and the CCG runner-up, if those aren't the same.

Take that!

Totally disagree. I mean, the 4 non playoff games should have the best teams possible. No rigging of a conferences contract bowl so they can get an extra team in there.

I mean take right now. ACC shouldn't be allowed to send say Miami to the Orange Bowl to get Louisville into the access bowl.

In cases where the champ is in the playoffs, the conferences already DO make their own rule about who their #2 is and goes to their contract bowl. How do you think that the Big 12 sent #16 OK State to the Sugar last year over #11 TCU? Because the Big 12's rule is that its own standings determine who is #2, not the CFP rankings.

That was part of the change they made after the Baylor/TCU fiasco in 2014, when they had a tie for the conference title. Everyone focused on the fact that from 2015 on, if conference records were equal, the Big 12 would use head to head to determine its champ, but they also decided that head to head would be used to determine its #2 as well.

Of course, a conference cannot change the rules mid-stream. If one conference tried to make a last-second rules change so as to get another team in the Access bowls, the other conferences would scream bloody murder and just do the same thing. But each conference has the power, before the season starts, determine its own rule for who goes to the contract bowl.

quo,

Maybe I worded it poorly, but I'm saying that each conference should update their contracts with their respective bowls to make it so that the conference can decide if it is the highest ranked team or the CCG runner-up who goes. Rather than the highest ranked team always getting it.

Too many CCG runner-ups get screwed out. The 2nd place team from the other division: too bad, you had your shot and lost.

(10-14-2016 11:43 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  quo,

Maybe I worded it poorly, but I'm saying that each conference should update their contracts with their respective bowls to make it so that the conference can decide if it is the highest ranked team or the CCG runner-up who goes. Rather than the highest ranked team always getting it.

Too many CCG runner-ups get screwed out. The 2nd place team from the other division: too bad, you had your shot and lost.

By "decide", do you mean "on the fly", right after their CCG? If so, I would disagree, because that could be used to gerrymander a 3rd team into an Access Bowl, as SteveR pointed out.

Unless, there was also a rule that says that if the conference decided to pass over a higher-ranked team for a lower-ranked team for its contract spot, like say put a lower-ranked CCG runner up into their contract bowl over a higher-ranked team that finished lower in the conference standings, then that higher-ranked team passed over was then ineligible for a spot in an Access Bowl. That protects the other conferences from last minute gerrymandering.

(10-14-2016 11:40 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Too bad. The Rose, Sugar, and Orange don't get to have their history and tradition stolen from them anymore, like the BCS did.

If the bowls won't accept the updated contract language, then it is what it is and the highest ranked team from the conference goes. But I think the conferences should push for it.

the thing is, that's a risky double edged sword for some conferences. I mean take the ACC. Yeah, they would want Louisville for the Access Bowl. But- lets use 2006 as an example....
Louisville #5- Orange(lets call ACC champion)
Wisconsin #6- Rose
Oklahoma #7- Sugar
USC #8- Rose
Boise St- #9- Cotton
Auburn #10- Sugar
Notre Dame #11- Orange
Arkansas #12- Cotton
Va Tech #14- Orange

If SEC plays the Arkansas CCG card, they go to the Sugar Bowl, and Auburn then would be the highest SEC/Big 10/ND team- and they're in the Orange Bowl. ACC loses big money there.

I think there was probably a lot more agreement on highest ranked than anything else because of just that.

So are you saying the Big 12 has a set rule before the season starts? You made it sound like before that it could decide the #2 how it wants.

I'm just saying: the other P5 should do what the Big 12 does!


As to your's and stever's "concern": bunk. So essentially you want the access slots to "go to the best team available -- but only if that team's conference doesn't already have 'too many' teams in the NY6 bowls" ??? Come on ...


I see zero wrong with saying the conf CCG runner-up should always get the contract bowl slot, assuming the winner goes to the CFP, then access slots up for grabs for all the remaining conf teams.


It's almost too bad that the CFP couldn't always just take the five CCG winners. Then you could make it a hard and fast rule, with winners in the CFP and losers in the contract bowls. Also assuming that the CFP sites were all bid out and neutral every year, so the contract bowls could always be filled with non-CFP games.


I'm daydreaming again .....



(PS - are you saying stever is really Steve R???? I thought it was like "oh hey there, stever" like a slap your buddy on the back nickname. Good god man, what is so hard about using capitalization???)

(10-14-2016 11:58 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  So are you saying the Big 12 has a set rule before the season starts? You made it sound like before that it could decide the #2 how it wants.

The Big 12, and any other conference, can decide who is their #2 to go to the contract bowl if their #1 is in the playoffs, but they can't do it on the fly, they have to do it by a pre-established rule.

And yes, the Big 12 does have such a rule, it says their #2 is whoever has the second best conference record, with head to head being the tiebreaker.

Of course, they are unique right now in not having a CCG. I bet when they have one next year they will then adopt the same rule the other conferences have, namely that #2 is whoever is ranked #2 by the CFP.

Probably.

And that's because the networks don't want to risk putting a crappy division winner, that obviously then loses the CCG, into a huge bowl game like the Rose/Sugar/Orange. That's why. Not because people are worried about the access slots.


We could still do something a little more clever, without the "last second gerrymandering" as you put it. Something like "Second highest CFP ranked team goes to the contract slot, UNLESS the CCG runner-up is within three spots in the CFP ranking". Or something like that. Preserves a high ranking team in the contract slot, but is fair to the CCG runner up.

(10-14-2016 07:45 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Probably.

And that's because the networks don't want to risk putting a crappy division winner, that obviously then loses the CCG, into a huge bowl game like the Rose/Sugar/Orange. That's why. Not because people are worried about the access slots.


We could still do something a little more clever, without the "last second gerrymandering" as you put it. Something like "Second highest CFP ranked team goes to the contract slot, UNLESS the CCG runner-up is within three spots in the CFP ranking". Or something like that. Preserves a high ranking team in the contract slot, but is fair to the CCG runner up.

FWIW, I totally get your point about CCG losers often getting crap treatment. You often hear "SEC East Champ Florida is 9-3, if they win the CCG they go to the Sugar Bowl to play Big 12 champ Baylor, if they lose they go to the Outhouse Craptastic Birmingham Bowl to play the Sun Belt Runner Up Georgia Southern A&M!".

So I have ZERO problem with what the Big 12 has done, making their #2 team whomever finishes #2 in their standings, not who is #2 in the CFP rankings. Last year, that meant #16 OK State went to the Sugar not #11 TCU. No problem with that at all.

I just think it axiomatic that as long as what conference A does affects the bowl situation of conference B (as it does concerning Access Bowl bids) you cannot change rules mid-stream. It has to be done by a rule established before the season starts, UNLESS the mid-stream rule change is crafted such that it eliminates effects outside of the conference. Like my rule saying if conference A can pick who its #2 is after their CCG, then if their chosen #2 is lower ranked in the CFP than any of their other teams, than those teams passed over are ineligible for Access slots. That caveat allows (a) the conference to express its value and preference that their CCG runner up is their true #2, regardless of what the CFP thinks, while (b) preventing them from gerrymandering the choice in a way that gives them more NY6 bowl bids than what they otherwise would get.

Sure, fine. No mid-stream changes.

Like I said, this could be the rule at the start of the season:

- If the CCG winner goes to the CFP, then the contract slot is filled by the second highest CFP ranked team, UNLESS the CCG loser is CFP ranked within three spots of the second highed ranked team, in which case the CCG loser goes the contract slot.

That's essentially what happened with the Big 12, with OU vs OK St being their defacto CCG.

(10-11-2016 07:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 07:13 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 04:27 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Fear the Smurf Turf team.

Lucky for the Cotton Bowl Boise can't bring that with them Davey....on a side note: I would like to see a rematch of Boise vs OU one of these years in Cotton or Fiesta, just for the nostalgia. That one game single handily made Boise a phenomenon. No one would of could have predicted this. I still remember watching that game just for the David Goliath match up. I remember thinking OU would win by 70. It's still hard to believe..
Cheers!

I watched the game, all of it. Was it a great game? Yes. But, I didn't then and still don't now understand why that Fiesta Bowl is So Damn Famous. It has clearly become one of the most famous football games ever played.

I only remember two things about the game. First, the statue of Liberty play to win the game. Second, a player proposed to his cheerleader girl friend after the touch down. And she said yes.

(10-15-2016 09:15 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Sure, fine. No mid-stream changes.

Like I said, this could be the rule at the start of the season:

- If the CCG winner goes to the CFP, then the contract slot is filled by the second highest CFP ranked team, UNLESS the CCG loser is CFP ranked within three spots of the second highed ranked team, in which case the CCG loser goes the contract slot.

That's essentially what happened with the Big 12, with OU vs OK St being their defacto CCG.

Your reply is the best kind from my POV, the kind that prompts fresh thinking on my part. Here's why:

The Big 12 rule is similar to what you propose, but of course it's actually even more generous to the CCG loser, because by your "3 spot" rule, #11 TCU would have played in the Sugar last year not #16 OK State, because OK State was ranked 5 spots behind TCU, not three. But the Big 12 rule doesn't have any "spot" caveat, it says whoever finishes #2 in the Big 12 standings is its #2, no matter how many spots it is behind another Big 12 team (that also did not win the Big 12 title) in the CFP standings.

But, I think this rule could lead to a big problem: Last year, the #9 - #11 teams in the CFP were #9 FSU, #10 UNC, and #11 TCU. BUT, what if TCU had been ranked #9, ahead of #10 FSU and #11 UNC?

By the Big 12 rule, #16 OK State would have gone to the Sugar Bowl as the Big 12 runner up, AND, #9 TCU would have then gone to the Peach Bowl to play Houston, instead of #10 FSU?

Imagine the Bloody Murder the ACC would have screamed had that happened! They would have protested that by having their own internal rule about who was their #2 that disregarded the CFP rankings, the Big 12 had maneuvered itself into an Access slot, the Peach, that rightfully should have been the ACCs! That would have caused a BIG blowup among the P5.

And I would agree with the ACC. IMO, you can't have a rule, even one set up before the season, that allows you to assign a lower-ranked non-champ to your contract bowl and then have a higher-ranked non-champ still eligible for an Access Bowl. The CFP should have a rule that says if you pass over the CFP #2 from your conference for your contract team, then the team the CFP says is your #2 is ineligible for an Access slot.

(10-15-2016 09:15 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Sure, fine. No mid-stream changes.

Like I said, this could be the rule at the start of the season:

- If the CCG winner goes to the CFP, then the contract slot is filled by the second highest CFP ranked team, UNLESS the CCG loser is CFP ranked within three spots of the second highed ranked team, in which case the CCG loser goes the contract slot.

That's essentially what happened with the Big 12, with OU vs OK St being their defacto CCG.

Your reply is the best kind from my POV, the kind that prompts fresh thinking on my part. Here's why:

The Big 12 rule is similar to what you propose, but of course it's actually even more generous to the within-conference #2, because by your "3 spot" rule, #11 TCU would have played in the Sugar last year not #16 OK State, because OK State was ranked 5 spots behind TCU, not three. But the Big 12 rule doesn't have any "spot" caveat, it says whoever finishes #2 in the Big 12 standings is its #2, no matter how many spots it is behind another Big 12 team (that also did not win the Big 12 title) in the CFP standings.

But, I think this rule could lead to a big problem: Last year, the #9 - #11 teams in the CFP were #9 FSU, #10 UNC, and #11 TCU. BUT, what if TCU had been ranked #9, ahead of #10 FSU and #11 UNC?

By the Big 12 rule, #16 OK State would have gone to the Sugar Bowl as the Big 12 runner up, AND, by the CFP rules #9 TCU would have then gone to the Peach Bowl to play Houston, instead of #10 FSU!

Imagine the Bloody Murder the ACC would have screamed had that happened! They would have protested that by having their own internal rule about who is their #2 that disregarded the CFP rankings, the Big 12 had maneuvered itself into an Access slot, the Peach, that rightfully should have been the ACCs! That would have caused a BIG blowup among the P5.

And I would agree with the ACC. IMO, you can't have a rule, even one set up before the season, that allows you to assign a lower-ranked non-champ to your contract bowl and then have a higher-ranked non-champ still eligible for an Access Bowl. The CFP should have a rule that says if a conference passes over the CFP #2 from its conference and selects a lower CFP ranked team as its contract team (like the Big 12 did with OK State to the Sugar over TCU last year), then the team the CFP says is your #2 is ineligible for an Access slot.

Not sure I'd wholeheartedly agree with such a rule ... but I wouldn't fight it too hard.

What's more important to me is that the CCG runner-up be given a fair chance to get the Contract slot ***IF*** they've reasonably earned it. Obviously, just because you're the CCG runner-up doesn't mean you've automatically earned it.

I would say that #16 OK St did not earn it, for certain with TCU at #9, and probably still with TCU at #11.

(10-15-2016 02:21 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Not sure I'd wholeheartedly agree with such a rule ... but I wouldn't fight it too hard.

What's more important to me is that the CCG runner-up be given a fair chance to get the Contract slot ***IF*** they've reasonably earned it. Obviously, just because you're the CCG runner-up doesn't mean you've automatically earned it.

I would say that #16 OK St did not earn it, for certain with TCU at #9, and probably still with TCU at #11.

I agree, I was very surprised that OK State got the Sugar Bowl bid over TCU. That was pushing the within-conference #2 concept too far.

But I also agree with you that the CCG loser, who is also a winner of a 6 or 7 team division, is too often treated shabbily in the bowl process. They system needs to recognize that the CCG loser is it a disadvantage compared to teams that didn't make the CCG, in that it's last game is a loss, which will hurt its final ranking disproportionately, not fair. The final impress is "loser", not "division winner", while some other team that didn't even make the CCG gets to stay at home and not lose.

For the CCG teams, it's often "first prize is this Cadillac, second prize is a set of steak knives".

I would say this weekend showed Miami is not out of the running.