New Orange Bowl Tie-In is an ACC-centric Scam...

[engie]

Doing research for an upcoming article -- and was shocked by the complexity of this tie-in. It's not worthy of an article itself, at least not until MSU is knocking on the door of the top 10 and it could affect us, but is certainly worth a thread or two.

It pits the ACC champion vs the "highest rated" team from the B1G, SEC, or Notre Dame. On the surface, it seems OK, right? I thought so too...but then I read the fine print. Why not just make the tie-in the ACC champion vs "best available team"? Because that would ACTUALLY pit the ACC against other best available teams -- instead of wording things in a way to ACTUALLY take any damn team you want.

- It pits the ACC champ(or best available ACC team) against a non-champion in the other leagues. That's right -- it literally says that IF the SEC/B1G champions are available and not in playoffs(which could happen when the Sugar and Rose host playoffs together as they will every 3rd year), the SEC/B1G champion goes to the Cotton, Fiesta, or Chick Fil-A bowl and NOT to the Orange. So, they literally lock out "the best available" team in a scenario that team is likely to be a champion and very highly-rated.

- They retain the right to revoke any potential rematches. That offers a fairly good chance of locking out SEC teams that play the ACC in the regular season.

- They guarantee the SEC and B1G that they would each get a team in a minimum of 3 times every 8 years -- while Notre Dame can get in a maximum of twice. So, in doing this, on a year-to-year basis -- they don't have to get the "best available" at all. But can pick and choose good match ups for the "home" team. This means that the SEC can only get teams into this game 5 times in 8 years at most -- and they don't even have to take the best available SEC team.

[smootness]

I'm not sure how it's any more 'ACC-centric' than the Sugar is 'SEC-centric'.

[engie]

I'm not sure how it's any more 'ACC-centric' than the Sugar is 'SEC-centric'.

Can you read? The fact that it's ACC-centric is NOT what makes it a scam...

The Sugar pits the SEC champion vs the Big12 champion. That's as fair as it gets.
The Orange pits the ACC champion vs another NON-CHAMPION of their CHOOSING from the SEC or B1G or Notre Dame. If you can't see how that's basically a scam -- I really can't help you...

[smootness]

But the Orange Bowl is the ACC's BCS tie-in. It is not the SEC or Big-12's BCS tie-in. Because the Orange Bowl is not tied in to another conference as well, as the Sugar is with the Big 12, the other spot is always open.

So let's say the Sugar Bowl is not a playoff host one year, and the Orange is. The ACC champion, if not in the playoff, plays in either the Fiesta or CFA. The SEC and Big 12 champs play in the Sugar. Now let's say the Sugar Bowl is a playoff host another year, and the Orange is not. The ACC champ plays in the Orange. The SEC and Big 12 champs then don't have a home in the BCS, as the ACC champ doesn't when the Orange hosts, so I don't really see an issue with putting a cap on the number of times one conference can have a representative in the game.

You seemed to be implying, based on your title, that it was a scam directly designed to assist the ACC and I don't see how that would be the case.

Now, on the subject of the fact that the SEC or Big 12 champion can't play in the game, that is obviously strange. Where did you read that? I can't imagine the Orange Bowl would be trying to set up a worse matchup for themselves.

But regardless, the new system is completely changing, so the standard for what a 'BCS bowl' really is will change. The Chick-fil-A and Cotton seem like they will be just as good as the Orange when the SEC hosts in the playoff.

I just don't see how it's a 'scam' and who that scam helps.

[smootness]

Just did a little more digging, and there will now be 6 playoff hosts, is that correct? The Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton, and CFA? So all 6 bowls are now essentially equal in footing. So my guess is that the Cotton, Fiesta, and CFA grabbed a non-playoff SEC champion, not that the Orange avoided them.

So it looks like the Orange is adding yet another possible guaranteed slot for an SEC team in a 'BCS bowl'. And this is a bad thing?

[engie]

Just did a little more digging, and there will now be 6 playoff hosts, is that correct? The Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton, and CFA? So all 6 bowls are now essentially equal in footing. So my guess is that the Cotton, Fiesta, and CFA grabbed a non-playoff SEC champion, not that the Orange avoided them.

So it looks like the Orange is adding yet another possible guaranteed slot for an SEC team in a 'BCS bowl'. And this is a bad thing?

Yes -- there are 6 "new BCS" bowls now. No -- the Cotton, Fiesta, and Chick Fil-A do not necessarily get the SEC champion. None of those 3 bowls have any tie-ins whatsoever going forward.

Basically, we somehow allowed the ACC to set-up a TOP FLIGHT bowl game -- where they get to choose who they play and avoid teams they don't want.

[engie]

But the Orange Bowl is the ACC's BCS tie-in. It is not the SEC or Big-12's BCS tie-in. Because the Orange Bowl is not tied in to another conference as well, as the Sugar is with the Big 12, the other spot is always open.
Your disagreements are the most confusing on here by far.

The Sugar is not currently tied to the Big12. In the past, the Rose Bowl is the only "BCS" bowl with a traditional tie-in between 2 different conferences. The Sugar = SEC, Fiesta = Big12, Orange = ACC, Rose = B1G vs Pac12. In the future, the Sugar will join the Rose Bowl -- tying 2 conference champions together for the first time. The Orange is totally unique in the new structure -- with what is basically a single-conference tie-in...


So let's say the Sugar Bowl is not a playoff host one year, and the Orange is. The ACC champion, if not in the playoff, plays in either the Fiesta or CFA. The SEC and Big 12 champs play in the Sugar.
When the Orange hosts, the ACC champion is guaranteed nothing at all. If they are good enough to draw one of the 3 "at-large" bids in this given year, they will play in either the Fiesta or Chick Fil-A. The best team from the "league of 5" gets an automatic berth -- hence why there is only 3 actual openings that year.


Now let's say the Sugar Bowl is a playoff host another year, and the Orange is not. The ACC champ plays in the Orange.
Correct.


The SEC and Big 12 champs then don't have a home in the BCS, as the ACC champ doesn't when the Orange hosts, so I don't really see an issue with putting a cap on the number of times one conference can have a representative in the game.
If you are going to do this -- why not just leave it as ACC vs "best available"? Why tie in with the SEC and B1G at all? After all -- you set up the tie-in to refuse to play Champion vs Champion. It's pretty ridiculous the first time you pass over a #8 SEC team -- for a #20 B1G team -- to meet an artificial "quota" you've put on the bowl that basically allows you to choose whoever you want -- with that "rule" as an excuse.


You seemed to be implying, based on your title, that it was a scam directly designed to assist the ACC and I don't see how that would be the case.
It is. It's never ACC #1 vs SEC/B1G #1. And by forcing each conference to get at least 3 games every 8 years -- you don't EVER have to take the best opponents.


Now, on the subject of the fact that the SEC or Big 12 champion can't play in the game, that is obviously strange. Where did you read that? I can't imagine the Orange Bowl would be trying to set up a worse matchup for themselves.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8624387/six-bowls-pool-college-football-semifinal-games
They are stacking the deck for the ACC.


But regardless, the new system is completely changing, so the standard for what a 'BCS bowl' really is will change. The Chick-fil-A and Cotton seem like they will be just as good as the Orange when the SEC hosts in the playoff.
They aren't as good. The Orange pays out $55 million per year -- split between the two conferences that play. In the new structure, the ACC basically owns that bowl -- just like the SEC/Big12 basically own the Sugar and distribute all proceeds from the game between themselves. The Rose and Sugar pay out $80 million per year - split between the conferences that play. There is no such deal for the other 3 bowls and the teams playing in them. If it works like the current BCS does, the SEC will make MINIMAL money from these games. As it currently sits, the SEC gets like $18mil for the first BCS team -- and only $5.6 mil for the second one.

Hence why it's in the SEC's best interest -- by far -- to have teams into the Orange whenever possible.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Special-Content/News/2012/BCS-ESPN.aspx


I just don't see how it's a 'scam' and who that scam helps.
It helps the ACC -- who basically owns that bowl now and keeps half of the revenue from it -- while setting up whatever match-ups they want.