Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

New Bowl & Championship Format

Buffnik

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member
And the leader in the clubhouse is...

Multiple sources with direct knowledge of last week's discussions in South Florida have confirmed to SI.com that the new favored proposal for a four-team playoff within the bowl system would place the two semifinal games at the traditional anchor bowls of the No. 1 and 2 teams' conferences. For example, No. 1 Alabama of the SEC would host the No. 4 team in the Sugar Bowl, while No. 2 USC of the Pac-12 would host the No. 3 team in the Rose Bowl.

The championship game will be bid out to all major cities, making it highly unlikely one of the current BCS bowls would host both a semifinal and a championship. "The idea is to get away from double-hosting," said a source.

Two new bowls (one of them presumably the revitalized Cotton Bowl) would join the four existing BCS bowls as part of a six-game television package, with a goal of playing all six on Dec. 31, Jan. 1 or Jan. 2. The commissioners have talked for some time about "reclaiming New Year's Day" and eliminating mid-week games played as late as Jan. 5. Assuming the current bowls retain their present anchor conferences (Big Ten and Pac-12 in the Rose, SEC in the Sugar, Big 12 in the Fiesta, ACC in the Orange), the two new games could serve as semifinal sites should the No. 1 and 2 teams hail from, say, the Big East and Mountain West -- or, like last season, from the same conference.​
​
 
Booo.

Dislike. A lot.

images
 
That actually sounds pretty good to me, especially about playing around New Year's Day. Also like the idea of no "double hosting".
 
I like it, it's actually the plan I had in mind. I think it preserves the bowl structure but also will give us an undisputed champ.
 
Boulder Buff said:
That actually sounds pretty good to me, especially about playing around New Year's Day. Also like the idea of no "double hosting".
Click to expand...

^^^^This^^^^ New Year's Day sounded best to me. The playoff still is teh suck, but better than what's going on now.
 
It could be a lot worse. Seems like they are trying to keep the feel of CFB and try and get back to the magic of new years day. I like that.
 
So, basically the Sugar Bowl will be hosting a semifinal game about every year.

And how would the PAC12 decide between Rose and Fiesta, both of which are "in" the conference footprint.
 
Plansit said:
So, basically the Sugar Bowl will be hosting a semifinal game about every year.

And how would the PAC12 decide between Rose and Fiesta, both of which are "in" the conference footprint.
Click to expand...

If I had to guess, the conferences will re-align their tie-ins.

Cotton Bowl will make a play for the Big 12 Champion.

That would open up the Fiesta to get the Pac-12 or Big Ten champ if the Rose Bowl was tied up (that would happen a lot).

Sugar gets the SEC champ.

Orange gets the ACC champ.

I'm guessing the 6th will be the Capital One Bowl (next largest payout at $4.6 million already). Since they're in Orlando where UCF is located, they may want the Big East champion tie-in.
 
This doesnt really preserve the Rose Bowl. I dont really see the Pac 12 or Big 10 going for it...
 
BuffClass90 said:
For those of you who don't like the plan, I'm curious as to why.
Click to expand...

I like the Pac 12/Big 10 matchup in the Rose Bowl. I also feel like it wouldn't be that difficult to simply take the four winners of the major bowls and place them in a playoff. It would keep the traditions of college football intact while simultaneously providing for a true "National Champion". Let's face it, any team that can go through the season and win enough games to get into one of the four major bowls is a damn good team.
 
josef said:
This doesnt really preserve the Rose Bowl. I dont really see the Pac 12 or Big 10 going for it...
Click to expand...

At this point, it's not preservation. It's an attempt to return to the tradition. In the 11 years from 2002 through 2012, the Rose Bowl has only been a BiG/Pac matchup 6 times.
 
I suppose this is a case where the perfect is the enemy of the good. I still don't like it. I think we could do so much better with very little effort. Why the intermediate step?
 
I would like an Pac-12 Champ/MWC Champ (Rose bowl)...C-USA Champ/Big 12 Champ (Cotton Bowl)... SEC Champ/ ACC Champ (Sugar Bowl).... Big East Champ/Big 10 Champ (Orange bowl)....(Rose bowl champ/Cotton Bowl Champ) Vs. (Sugar bowl champ/ Orange Bowl champ) I tried to make competition fair, also regions are close. And conference and bowl history kinda intact. I also allow lesser but strong conferences a chance to compete.
 
FLbuff said:
I would like an Pac-12 Champ/MWC Champ (Rose bowl)...C-USA Champ/Big 12 Champ (Cotton Bowl)... SEC Champ/ ACC Champ (Sugar Bowl).... Big East Champ/Big 10 Champ (Orange bowl)....(Rose bowl champ/Cotton Bowl Champ) Vs. (Sugar bowl champ/ Orange Bowl champ) I tried to make competition fair, also regions are close. And conference and bowl history kinda intact. I also allow lesser but strong conferences a chance to compete.
Click to expand...

That sounds terrible.
 
flbuff said:
i would like an pac-12 champ/big 10 champ (rose bowl)...big east champ/big 12 champ (cotton bowl)... Sec champ/ acc champ (sugar bowl).... at large champ/at large champ (orange bowl)....(rose bowl champ/cotton bowl champ) vs. (sugar bowl champ/ orange bowl champ) i tried to make competition fair, also regions are close. And conference and bowl history kinda intact. I also allow lesser but strong conferences a chance to compete.
Click to expand...


fify
 
I believe that the BCS would not want the two at larges playing because of the tv markets.
 
Citrus bowl--captital one home is kind of a rust bucket, but has great sightlines in the actual stadium, a field turf field -and the most hotel rooms of any of the mentioned locales
 
FLbuff said:
I believe that the BCS would not want the two at larges playing because of the tv markets.
Click to expand...

Thats possible. Its also possible one or both of those teams come from AQ conferences. If we followed this guideline this year it would have been Okie Lite/Stanford (cant remember who was ranked higher at the time) and Bama.

It would be sort of unusual to have two teams from either the MWC, C-USA, WAC, Indy, or any other conference for that matter ranked in the top 8 going forward with the way the conferences are aligning. If we do it would be sort of an odd ball deal and I am sure that people would tune in.
 
sackman said:
I like the Pac 12/Big 10 matchup in the Rose Bowl. I also feel like it wouldn't be that difficult to simply take the four winners of the major bowls and place them in a playoff. It would keep the traditions of college football intact while simultaneously providing for a true "National Champion". Let's face it, any team that can go through the season and win enough games to get into one of the four major bowls is a damn good team.
Click to expand...

+1 I actually liked the old bowl system. The uncertainty of #1 and the subsequent arguments with other alums were half the fun. Now it's NFL light with a mass market appeal to the bridge and tunnel crowd who have absolutely no interest in the actual universities. In any case, the suggested proposal may be less awful than the current one.
 
josef said:
Thats possible. Its also possible one or both of those teams come from AQ conferences. If we followed this guideline this year it would have been Okie Lite/Stanford (cant remember who was ranked higher at the time) and Bama.

It would be sort of unusual to have two teams from either the MWC, C-USA, WAC, Indy, or any other conference for that matter ranked in the top 8 going forward with the way the conferences are aligning. If we do it would be sort of an odd ball deal and I am sure that people would tune in.
Click to expand...

This may be part of the reason this is popular with the majors. It takes away the potential for an anti-trust suit since anyone could potentially get into the mix against one of the conference champs but the likelyhood of a MWC or C-USA team being ranked high enough to funnel off money on a regular basis is pretty slim.
 
MtnBuff said:
This may be part of the reason this is popular with the majors. It takes away the potential for an anti-trust suit since anyone could potentially get into the mix against one of the conference champs but the likelyhood of a MWC or C-USA team being ranked high enough to funnel off money on a regular basis is pretty slim.
Click to expand...

Plus it's unlikely that any of the programs outside the Power 6 conferences have the cache that would cause one of the 6 major bowls to invite them if they're not in the Top 4 to force their hand.

Truth is, a 3-loss USC, Texas or Notre Dame is going to draw a much bigger number than an undefeated Hawaii.
 
This is a great setup if it ends up being the one. It's only 4 teams, which is the ideal size, plus it incorporates the current bowls. Love it!!
 
I'd much prefer 8 teams, using existing bowls as has been suggested. That only adds one game for four teams to the plus 1 format.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top