Started By
Message
So How Do We Feel About the SEC Front Office Holding Us Back?
Posted on 12/28/13 at 9:08 am
Posted on 12/28/13 at 9:08 am
Source for those who didn't see:
LINK
I don't mind it too much as we didn't deserve a better spot. Still will hold the fact our team is more appealing over LSU family members.
LINK
I don't mind it too much as we didn't deserve a better spot. Still will hold the fact our team is more appealing over LSU family members.
4
Posted on 12/28/13 at 9:53 am to cardboardboxer
The SEC was going to let it go until the CFA folks came to them. They were pretty pissy that the ACC was forcing Duke on them who is going to kill tv ratings. They'd already sold out so they basically begged the SEC to step in so they could get us.
Once we're off the board their options would have been LSU who went last year or unranked 8-4 UGA or vandy. None are particularly appealing
Once we're off the board their options would have been LSU who went last year or unranked 8-4 UGA or vandy. None are particularly appealing
Posted on 12/28/13 at 10:22 am to cardboardboxer
This was probably due to LSU going to Chick-fil-a and A&M to Cotton last year. Both were 10-2 and top 10 but LSU won the H2H. A&M had the Heisman winner JFF. Just the politics that come into play time to time. The upside of the coming playoff is, from what I understand, the selection committee determines invites to all 6 major bowl sites, so parochial interest won't come into play as much.
Posted on 12/28/13 at 11:03 am to dbt_Geaux_Tigers_196
quote:
The upside of the coming playoff is, from what I understand, the selection committee determines invites to all 6 major bowl sites, so parochial interest won't come into play as much.
This.
Very excited that the status quo of the CFB postseason is changing soon.
Posted on 12/28/13 at 11:06 am to TbirdSpur2010
Definitely. There is no artificial conference limit. I'm trying to get an official answer from them (don't know if I will) on what considerations they will use for selections. Perceived strength, traditional regional tie-ins, rankings, etc. Hopefully they will match their best 12 in all 6 games but I am not 100% on this.
Posted on 12/28/13 at 12:26 pm to dbt_Geaux_Tigers_196
quote:
Hopefully they will match their best 12 in all 6 games but I am not 100% on this.
Personally I think the committee is designed to enforce regional sharing of college football success for the purpose of ratings and interest, just like the NFL only has two wildcard and not six. If it really was based on merit then conferences like the B1G would never have signed on. They would have backed plus one until the end of time.
That said I personally don't hate the way it is currently because that has meant A&M playing in better bowls than we deserve because our fans buy tickets. Even back in the Big 12 or SWC we would get placed in bowls above more deserving teams. We would often then get killed in those bowl games, but the platform for greater success was always there.
If college football was based purely on merit WVU (most BCS bowl wins) or FSU would be in the SEC instead of A&M. With that said I don't think the old system of shutting out deserving programs so Michigan can go to another big bowl it didn't earn is optimal either.
I think the best system will balance merit, tradition, fan bases, geographic distribution and quality of matchup. I have hopes the committee WILL do that.
Posted on 12/28/13 at 1:31 pm to cardboardboxer
wouldn't count on all that. There are 12 total spots and 6 are fixed with a few others being contractually obligated. For instance, if it was this year, it would look something like:
Playoff (Rose, Sugar): FSU, Auburn, MSU, Bama*
Auto-berths: Stanford, Baylor, UCF (highest ranked of little 5)
Contractual pick: OSU (Orange), Clemson (Orange)
So you'd only have 3 at-large selections from there. My guess is you'll see those selections based on who would make the most money via tickets/tv. If you don't help out your bowl/tv partners, you aren't going to be in business long or you aren't going to get as high of bids the next time through. I think you'd see something like:
Orange: OSU (highest ranked SEC/B1G/ND) vs Clemson (ACC)
Cotton: Oregon* vs Baylor
Fiesta: Stanford vs Oklahoma*
Peach: Missouri* vs UCF
* At-large selections
That may be close to what you'd do but you're probably not going to see the UCF/Baylor/Stanford combos simply because it's bad business for the bowls.
Playoff (Rose, Sugar): FSU, Auburn, MSU, Bama*
Auto-berths: Stanford, Baylor, UCF (highest ranked of little 5)
Contractual pick: OSU (Orange), Clemson (Orange)
So you'd only have 3 at-large selections from there. My guess is you'll see those selections based on who would make the most money via tickets/tv. If you don't help out your bowl/tv partners, you aren't going to be in business long or you aren't going to get as high of bids the next time through. I think you'd see something like:
Orange: OSU (highest ranked SEC/B1G/ND) vs Clemson (ACC)
Cotton: Oregon* vs Baylor
Fiesta: Stanford vs Oklahoma*
Peach: Missouri* vs UCF
* At-large selections
That may be close to what you'd do but you're probably not going to see the UCF/Baylor/Stanford combos simply because it's bad business for the bowls.
Posted on 12/28/13 at 1:52 pm to tmc94
Realized this might not be obvious but USCe gets screwed in this scenario for money reasons:
- there are 3 at-large bowls and 3 small fanbase schools (Baylor, UCF, Stanford). Each goes to their closest regional bowl spreading the pain among the 3 but also making travel easier for them
- the at-large selection for each of those bowls is somewhat regional (within reason) and avoiding intra-conference games. USCe already played UCF which eliminates them from the Peach Bowl as an option
- OU and UO are both better options for the bowls and end up selected ahead of them for the Cotton and Fiesta
So what I'm saying is the at-larges are still chosen, like today, for virtually the same reasons. Nothing really changes other than the name.
- there are 3 at-large bowls and 3 small fanbase schools (Baylor, UCF, Stanford). Each goes to their closest regional bowl spreading the pain among the 3 but also making travel easier for them
- the at-large selection for each of those bowls is somewhat regional (within reason) and avoiding intra-conference games. USCe already played UCF which eliminates them from the Peach Bowl as an option
- OU and UO are both better options for the bowls and end up selected ahead of them for the Cotton and Fiesta
So what I'm saying is the at-larges are still chosen, like today, for virtually the same reasons. Nothing really changes other than the name.
Posted on 12/28/13 at 2:04 pm to tmc94
although it could be interesting if this were the year the Fiesta/Peach hosted the semis as the contractual obligations change
Playoff (Fiesta, Peach): FSU, Auburn, MSU, Bama*
Auto-berths: Stanford, Baylor, UCF (highest ranked of little 5)
Contractual picks: Missouri (Sugar), OSU (Rose), Clemson (Orange), South Carolina (Orange)
My guess is Orange and Sugar would trade SEC teams. But in that scenario, there is only 1 at-large to pick and it would have to go to the Cotton so I'd wager it would be Oklahoma (over higher ranked Oregon)
Sugar: South Carolina (SEC) vs Baylor (Big 12)
Rose: Stanford (PAC) vs Ohio State (B1G)
Orange: Missouri (highest ranked SEC/B1G/ND) vs Clemson (ACC)
Cotton: UCF vs Oklahoma*
Playoff (Fiesta, Peach): FSU, Auburn, MSU, Bama*
Auto-berths: Stanford, Baylor, UCF (highest ranked of little 5)
Contractual picks: Missouri (Sugar), OSU (Rose), Clemson (Orange), South Carolina (Orange)
My guess is Orange and Sugar would trade SEC teams. But in that scenario, there is only 1 at-large to pick and it would have to go to the Cotton so I'd wager it would be Oklahoma (over higher ranked Oregon)
Sugar: South Carolina (SEC) vs Baylor (Big 12)
Rose: Stanford (PAC) vs Ohio State (B1G)
Orange: Missouri (highest ranked SEC/B1G/ND) vs Clemson (ACC)
Cotton: UCF vs Oklahoma*
Posted on 12/28/13 at 7:18 pm to tmc94
I'm going to try and find a good answer but I think the selection committee is free to choose who they want for all 6 sites. The old tie-ins were abrogated by the new 12 year CFP contract.
I'll try to find out.
I'll try to find out.
Posted on 12/28/13 at 8:12 pm to dbt_Geaux_Tigers_196
quote:they aren't: LINK. There are 6 contractually bound tie-ins that they must follow in years that bowl is not hosting a semi
I think the selection committee is free to choose who they want for all 6 sites
Sugar - SEC, Big 12
Rose - B1G, PAC
Orange - ACC, highest rank of SEC, B1G, ND
In years these bowls are not hosting semifinals, the committee has no say whatsoever in them.
The committee is also bound to select the champion of each P5 conference plus the highest ranked Little 5 champion.
Posted on 12/28/13 at 8:14 pm to cardboardboxer
Posted on 12/28/13 at 9:15 pm to tmc94
ummm, I'm a bit suspicious of wiki. May well be right, but I've read articles suggesting they choose the invites for all 6 sites.
Posted on 12/31/13 at 6:16 am to cardboardboxer
I'm ok as long as it's the new norm and is consistent. If we lose the SEC-CG one year we better be in the Cotton Bowl still
Page 1 of 1
Latest Texas A&M News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News