Yes, an eyeball test and a selection committee sounds eminently more logical/palatable than forcing teams to have to actually win the conference to get in. ...I'm sure people will love that idea.
Were the Patriots really the best team? Not only did they not win their own division, but there were two other non-division-winning teams in the conference that had better records than them. A playoff with two wildcards may allow a crappy team to make it here and there, but it rarely ever will leave out a team that truly has a claim to being one of the best. The problem with a college playoff is that it would only be 4 games, so you have to be more selective. Every league in the country will pick their division winners before putting in wildcard teams. College football should be no different.
1. American sports have always love playoff systems, because the true fan entertainment here was that "every team" has a chance and the drama of the underdog. Much more so than say soccer in europe or other world sports they are all about the best team winning. 2. You cannot have a single league or playoff with an unbalanced schedule. Having WC play each other more than EC, would make a division-less league "unfair. This is even bigger issue in a sport like the NFL where it would be impossible to play every other team even once. 3. The biggest reasoning for an unbalanced schedule the division that logically follow that principle is cost. It costs a lot more money to send a team from Houston to Seattle or NYC than to Dallas, New Orleans, Oklahoma, etc. While this was more true when many of these leagues started, it is still true to some extent today. So creating divisions where you play closer teams more often made sense economically. 4. Regional divisions also created more fan support because it built on geographic rivalries that already existed, Dallas vs Houston, Chicago vs Detroit, NYC vs Boston, etc. By highlighting these rivalries, you are more likely to get higher fan support and perhaps even more fans travelling to road games because of the rivalry aspect and the proximity.
@McMurphyCBS: Champs of SEC & Big 12 will meet in a bowl if neither team in natl semis, sources told @CBSSports & @MrCFB @ESPNAndyKatz: SEC and Big 12 agree to have champions (unless team is selected for four-team playoff) to meet in New Year's Day bowl game post 2014.
Worth adding two things: 1) The game will still happen if the champions are in the playoffs, per the official release. Just slide in the next team from the conference. Same as the Rose Bowl format. 2) The biggest significance of this is that you're likely seeing the origins of a SEC/Big 12 alliance, which ultimately will reject the "only conference champions" playoff plan of Jim Delany and the Big Ten. I doubted that would happen anyway, because it's silly, but Delany had a built-in ally in Larry Scott and the Pac 12, and there can be strength in numbers. This gets arguably the two biggest hitters on the same page, and that should be enough for them to get whatever they want from the playoff talks.
I thought there's already a SEC-Big 12 bowl game called The Cotton Bowl. It might look like UT and A&M could play against each other before 2018.
This would be a step above that. Right now, the top Big 12 team - if not in the title game/playoff, goes to the Fiesta. The top SEC team, if not in the title game/playoff, goes to the Sugar. Also, in the SEC, the Capital One is above Cotton in the pecking order, and Outback is equal. This is both the SEC and Big 12 saying that this bowl will indisputably be their top (non-national title) bowl. Definitely a step up from the current Cotton Bowl setup.
It'll be interesting to watch the battle between New Orleans and Dallas on this game, too. Obviously the Sugar has the advantage now, with its BCS history. And undoubtedly, the SEC brass - much more powerful than their counterparts in the Big 12 - would love to have the game firmly in their market, if all things are equal. Problem with that is Jerry Jones has a lot of money and Cowboys Stadium is Cowboys Stadium. Curious to see how that turns out.
Would not surprise me to see it rotated between cities affiliated with each conference. I would guess it gets a sponsorship name but changes venue every other year, probably NO one year Dallas the next. IMO this is a huge get for both conferences, and definitely a game I would be interested in seeing. I also like the fact they want to do it on New Year's. I love having a good college game on NYD.
USA Today article said that it's unclear whether the game will be played at a single location annually. If so, think it'll definitely be a Sugar vs JerryWorld battle.
That's a very good point because most of our local syndicated tv stations carries Big 12 and SEC games for the past couple of years.
It will likely not happen but you never know. I think the edge will go to JerryWorld in Arlington just because that place is the premier football stadium in the US. Plus the Big 12 offices are in Dallas and the Stadium can seat over 100,000 people. It sounds like the Big 12 and teh SEC are going to keep their options open but wherever they go they are going to want the biggest pay-out and the most prestige as possible. No other stadium offers what JerryWorld offers.
That is a bowl game between the #2 Big 12 team vs #3/4 SEC team, so it's hardly a championship match. I'm excited for this. I have a feeling that the location of the game will be rotated each year as some of you have said between Dallas and New Orleans. I love the Cotton bowl and I think this will be an even better bowl. I wonder what they'll call it?
Chip Brown says a modest estimate is that the game will bring in 70 million to be devised between the two conferences. The super dome holds holds 77,000 while Cowboys stadium holds 100,000 which could be the difference of 3 - 4 million. Thats an extra 36 - 38 million a conference. Add the extra money that each conference will get for what will likely be annual appearances in the semi-finals game, another 20 million a conference maybe. And then if they make it to the finals.... I think the bigger question is what does this new game mean to FSU and maybe a college like ND? With both the Big 12 and SEC looking to gain an extra 60+ million a year for their conferences, what will FSU and ND do when the door is open for them to get a piece of the pie just by joining one of the conferences. The Big 12 schools will get: 20+ million a year for TV contracts 3.5+ million for the new SEC / Big 12 game 2+ million for simi-final game 2+ million for final (if the Big 12 makes it) That's 25 - 27 annually that does not include 3rd tier money. UT averages 13 million annually in 3rd tier money. FSU will get 17 million annually from the ACC. How often will that conference make it to the Semis or finals? Not often. What would an ACC / Big East game be worth? Not close to the SEC / Big 12 game. ND is leaving as much money on the table as FSU. So at what point does one or both schools make the leap to the Big 12?
The SEC has a long standing relationship with the Cotton Bowl which is now in Jerryworld. That makes a lot more sense than forging a whole new relationship in Houston. Assuming the top 4 ranked teams go to a playoff, that means this game will rarely ever have the Big 12 winner vs the SEC winner. In the last 10 years, the AP poll has never not included a Big 12 or SEC team. I didn't go back any further but I'm sure that streak extends way before 2002. Also, never in the history of the BCS poll has the top 4 not included either a SEC or Big 12 team. Do we really think only one team will be in the playoffs per conference? Still going to be a pretty good matchup.
Done deal, albeit only for 4 teams: http://espn.go.com/college-football...-consensus-four-team-college-football-playoff CHICAGO -- The BCS commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick on Wednesday endorsed a seeded four-team playoff model for college football that would begin for the 2014 season. The commissioners' consensus must be approved by the BCS presidential oversight committee, which meets June 26 in Washington, D.C. If approved, the four-team playoff would replace the current BCS system, which has been in place since 1998. Sources told ESPN.com that under the recommended model, four participating teams would be selected by a committee, which would consider certain criteria such as conference championships and strength of schedule. The two national semifinal games would be played within the existing BCS bowl games (Fiesta, Orange, Rose and Sugar) on a rotating basis, with the host sites being predetermined before each season. The national championship game would be offered to the highest bidding city. "We're very unified," Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said. "There are issues that have yet to be finalized. There's always devil in the detail, from the model to the selection process, but clearly we've made a lot of progress." Pac 12 commissioner Larry Scott said the recommendation was the product of a lot of negotiating and cooperation among the commissioners. "I'm sure it won't satisfy everyone," Scott said. "Until you have an eight-team or 16-team seeded playoff, there will be folks out there that aren't completely satisfied. We get that. But we're trying to balance other important parties, like the value of the regular season, the bowls, the academic calendar." The BCS commissioners have met five times since the national title game in New Orleans, including a four-hour session Wednesday. SEC commissioner Mike Slive, who likened the process to a marathon, said, "My hope is we've done 26 [miles]. My hope is we have .2 to go." The presidential oversight committee, which includes a representative from each of the FBS conferences and Notre Dame, still is expected to discuss multiple models next week, including a plus-one format proposed by presidents from the Big Ten and Pac 12. "The fact that there will be a full and complete discussion is totally appropriate," Slive said. "Obviously, we have put forth a consensus four-team playoff model, and we wouldn't do that if we didn't feel it was appropriate." The presidents' committee could either approve the recommended four-team model or direct the commissioners to work out its remaining details. "I'm sure all of the I's and T's won't be crossed and dotted," Scott said. "The presidents just have to decide whether they want to go in this particular direction that we're coming out with. Every other detail, I feel comfortable can be worked out." ACC commissioner John Swofford said the commissioners have agreed on the principles of how the increased TV revenue will be distributed among the participating conferences. Industry sources have indicated a four-team playoff might be worth as much as $400 million to $500 million annually. "We've agreed to the principles," Swofford said. "It's hard to move past the principles if you don't know what the market value is. Everyone agrees that financially this is going to be good for everyone in the room."
