PurplFrawg
Administrator
Whichever bowl Texas winds up going to...I hope the other team wins.
Week 14: Conference Championship Games Thread
- Thread starter TCUdirtbag
- Start date
Frog-in-law1995
Active Member
What if the other team is Texas A&…oh, wait.
One thing that people don’t often discuss is point margin. Had Ohio State lost by 7 instead of 22 things would be different for them. As they would have for us if had beaten ISU by 3. Or lose to K-State by 20+.
A close win or loss doesn’t have the same impact as a convincing win or loss.
froginmn
Full Member
I'm not sure that it would go that way.
The language reads:
Should a team from the Big Ten or Pac-12 be selected to play in the College Football Playoff, the Tournament of Roses will traditionally select the next-highest CFP-ranked team from that conference.
I think their desire is to prevent exactly what you're saying would happen, and the above language at minimum leaves that door open (doesn't say "if the champion is selected" it says "if a team is selected").
I think we know that they're trying to get the best draw...
Endless Purple
Full Member
The first statement reads:
"the Rose Bowl Game is contractually obligated to feature the Pac-12 Conference Champion and the Big Ten Conference Champion."
Then "if Pac-12 or Big Ten Conference Champion was selected to the National Championship or National Semifinals, that team was released to play in that game and the Tournament of Roses would select a replacement team."
Then your statement kicks in. (edit to add: Washington would be the highest ranked remaining PAC team if USC wins and goes to the CFP)
If either/both Purdue and Utah win, they would be the conference champions and contractually obligated to play in the Rose Bowl, unless they make the CFP. They are not making the CFP.
ROSE BOWL GAME PRESENTED BY NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL SELECTION PROCEDURES - Tournament of Roses
The selection process for the Rose Bowl Game has, in […]
tournamentofroses.com
Frog-in-law1995
Active Member
you have to first read the paragraph above that one (actually, 2 paragraphs above it):
In both the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) and now in the CFP, if Pac-12 or Big Ten Conference Champion is selected to the National Championship or National Semifinals, that team is released to play in that game and the Tournament of Roses selects a replacement team.
There is a contract between the bowl and the two conferences that requires the each champion to play in the game, except for when a champ is selected for a chance at a natty elsewhere.
froginmn
Full Member
I know what you and Endless are saying; I just think there's enough wordsmithing language on those pages (and they specifically announced that they were changing to traditional criteria -why, other than to keep this from happening?) that I think it's possible they do something [ Finebaum ]ty and select tOSU over Purdue.
If they don't, I think they'll change the rules again to fit the last bit of language from Endless' link:
It should be noted that it is the strong preference of the Tournament of Roses, Pac-12 and Big Ten Conferences, that the highest-ranked available team in each conference be selected as the replacement team.
I have a feeling they'll remove the ambiguity of "replacement team" to prevent a 8-4 team from representing the conference and getting the bid over tOSU and PSU.
Horny4TCU
Active Member
I want USC to lose so Max's Heisman chances improve.Rooting for a USC loss, I would love to play Ohio State in the natty and get our revenge on them.
Frog-in-law1995
Active Member
They are contractually obligated to take the conference champions unless the champions are selected to the playoffs. There is zero ambiguity. They changed the criteria to require the bowl to select a replacement from the same conference as the conference champ going to the playoff (or, previously, the BCS natty). So no more Texas or TCU in the Rose Bowl.
It’s the exact same reason why we’d play in the Cotton, rather than the Sugar, if we lose to KSU and don’t make the playoffs.
It’s the exact same reason why we’d play in the Cotton, rather than the Sugar, if we lose to KSU and don’t make the playoffs.
Endless Purple
Full Member
I don't think there is ambiguity of "replacement team" (ie a replacement for the champion). The highest ranked team will be a replacement as you stated. I think the statement of conference champion would have to be ambiguous to not take a winning Utah or Purdue.
To be honest, I am not sure I want to find out. If USC and Michigan win, and we have to wait a few years to find out, I think I would be ok. Maybe.
Horny4TCU has a point about helping Duggan's Heisman chance, so maybe root for Utah and see how it unfolds. Might find out in a week.
This. Otherwise I don’t really see much difference between Ohio State and USC. They are pretty similar teams.
froginmn
Full Member
Yeah I think that there are a couple conferences REALLY holding their breath hoping that chaos doesn't happen. Someone posted somewhere that we could lose the CCG and get bounced to the Alamo Bowl. That would be very embarrassing for the B12. And having Purdue in the Rose Bowl would suck as well given that they'd jump over three teams with better conference records, albeit one that they beat). I don't think it's likely at all, however.
I have a feeling that CCG's in the future will be used to determine the conference champion but not guarantee a spot in a particular bowl.
With the advent of expanded playoffs we'll also see 2-4 lower bowls disappear, which is a good thing. Already have 5-7 Rice likely to make a bowl...
Last edited:
Moose Stuff
Active Member
Why is bowls going away a good thing??? I assume everyone posting on this board likes college football. Why is it good to have LESS college football???
I would gladly trade one more week of regular season football for getting rid of the Bowls. Bowl games generally stink, and they seem to get worse every year.
I think it'd be great if everyone added a good OOC regular season game, there aren't enough of those IMO.
LVH
Active Member
And needed a miracle last second comeback to beat 1-11 South Florida
LVH
Active Member
Isn't the Orange Bowl another bowl with an at-large spot? Only the ACC is contracted to it.
dawg
Active Member
The Orange Bowl is contracted ACC vs B1G/SEC/ND when not hosting a semi. So not a true "at large."
ACC, Orange Bowl finalize 12-year agreement
The Atlantic Coast Conference and the Discover Orange Bowl have finalized a 12-year deal placing the ACC champion annually in the bowl against either an SEC or Big Ten team, or Notre Dame, starting Jan. 1, 2015.
www.espn.com
Endless Purple
Full Member
Agree. I usually root for chaos, but not this year as that might lead to that very very small chance of TCU in the Alamo.
I do like having the bowl games, but I do think there are just a few to many. Primarily because the lowest bowls pay so little, that I believe the school take a loss to attend in some cases. I would like to see enough bowls for the average number of 7-5 teams so that very rarely would a 6-6 team get in. So what, maybe 20-25 bowls max.
LVH
Active Member
Opt-out culture is what is killing these bowls.
You see a lot of players who opt out, not because they are a sure fire NFL propsect, but because their ego drives them to do it - opting out makes them feel like they are "above" playing in a bowl game. I understand a 1st round NFL draft pick opting out, but you have fringe prospects at best doing it.
It's like college basketball players who declare early for the NBA draft and not only fail to get drafted, but don't even make an NBA summer team roster.
Cut the number of bowls in half, make them feel somewhat prestigious again.
