Six-bowl premium package will turn New Year's into nirvana

[Saunders]

New article on SI about the new Bowl Plan. Me likey.

 

Here's what the lineup might have looked like using last season's field and the committee's anticipated criteria (strength of schedule, head-to-head, valuing conference champions, etc).

 

• Dec. 31, 1 p.m. Chick-fil-A: No. 11 Clemson (10-3) vs. No. 13 Baylor (9-3)

• Dec. 31, 4:30 p.m. Cotton: No. 9 South Carolina (10-2) vs. No. 10 Boise State (11-1)

• Dec. 31, 8 p.m. Fiesta: No. 2 Oklahoma State (11-1) vs. No. 3 Alabama (11-1)

• Jan. 1, 1 p.m. Sugar: No. 6 Arkansas (10-2) vs. No. 7 Kansas State (10-2)

• Jan. 1, 5 p.m. Rose: No. 5 Stanford (11-1) vs. No. 8 Wisconsin (11-2)

• Jan. 1, 8:30 p.m. Orange: No. 1 LSU (13-0) vs. No. 4 Oregon (10-2)

 

 

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c...l#ixzz1zCXDIwR3

[Jaybird]

Me likey. I have never truly understood the bowl match ups. I do understand the conference tie ins etc. I always thought that at the very least the top games if not all of them should take more time to create better match ups. With the 36 bowls out there and so many of them were borderline unwatchable. Why not do something like have an agreement with conferences to allow for a certain number of teams from each conference to be put in bowls automatically (much like the tie ins now) but not lock them into specific bowls with a horrible match up. I want to see traditional powers against new up and comers. I want to see great defenses strategically matched up against high powered offenses. Maybe I am in the minority here but this aspect is where I feel the committee will be a great benefit as they can really create awesome match ups that will in turn be great for fans as well as for the tv networks. Lets be honest in the end it is the tv networks that really have the power because they have the money!

['SkersRule]

New article on SI about the new Bowl Plan. Me likey.

 

Here's what the lineup might have looked like using last season's field and the committee's anticipated criteria (strength of schedule, head-to-head, valuing conference champions, etc).

 

• Dec. 31, 1 p.m. Chick-fil-A: No. 11 Clemson (10-3) vs. No. 13 Baylor (9-3)

• Dec. 31, 4:30 p.m. Cotton: No. 9 South Carolina (10-2) vs. No. 10 Boise State (11-1)

• Dec. 31, 8 p.m. Fiesta: No. 2 Oklahoma State (11-1) vs. No. 3 Alabama (11-1)

• Jan. 1, 1 p.m. Sugar: No. 6 Arkansas (10-2) vs. No. 7 Kansas State (10-2)

• Jan. 1, 5 p.m. Rose: No. 5 Stanford (11-1) vs. No. 8 Wisconsin (11-2)

• Jan. 1, 8:30 p.m. Orange: No. 1 LSU (13-0) vs. No. 4 Oregon (10-2)

 

 

Read more: http://sportsillustr...l#ixzz1zCXDIwR3

 

I definitely like those theoretical matchups. One thing I would definitely change is that the playoffs would start one week after the regular season ends. This waiting for two and a half weeks at the minimum before the first bowl games are played and a month plus for the national title game is really dumb.

[RedDenver]

I can already hear the theoretical whining about the LSU-Oregon rematch.

[Notre Dame Joe]

So WVU doesn't get a chance to expose Clemson? I think that game was a valuable lesson about the line "weak ass big east champion."

 

But all the major bowls on one day, like how they used to do it? I refer you to my annual January post on the old system, fudging a bit for tie ins that don't exist anymore.

 

Cotton Bowl Classic. Baylor vs Alabama SWC vs atlarge

 

Orange Bowl: Oklahoma St. vs Clemson [big8/BigEast/ACC all had tie ins at different times]

 

Sugah Bowl: LSU vs Boise St SEC vs atlarge

 

Fiesta Bowl: West Virginia vs Stanford [big12 or two independents]

 

Rose Bowl: Oregon PAC vs Wisconsin B1g10 [same]

 

 

Now this produces some awesome combos for the BCSCG a week later.