Per Matt Hayes of the Sporting News:

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-footbal...um=twitter

Quotes:

"One BCS source told Sporting News Wednesday that there is also “a danger in diluting your product” with the seventh bowl."

"But here’s why the seventh game could happen: The Pac-12 and Big 12 are pushing for it, too. The Pac-12 (Rose) and Big 12 (Sugar) currently are anchored to one major bowl each; the SEC (Sugar, Orange) and the Big Ten (Rose, Orange) are anchored to two."

"All of this will begin to get hashed out next week at the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee meeting in Denver."

As the worm turns...BE TV talks in parallel make this a really fluid situation.

Ha! Gonna "hash" things out in Colorado are they..

(11-07-2012 03:29 PM)BroncoFan78 Wrote:  Ha! Gonna "hash" things out in Colorado are they..

Well played...well played indeed.

OT: But am I the only one who thinks schools like Colorado and Washington are going to see improved recruiting success as a result of this new legislation? I wouldn't be suprised if several TCU players have already lined up their transfer papers.

(11-07-2012 03:38 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  OT: But am I the only one who thinks schools like Colorado and Washington are going to see improved recruiting success as a result of this new legislation? I wouldn't be suprised if several TCU players have already lined up their transfer papers.

Oh, I guarantee you those TCU guys already have papers!

(11-07-2012 03:41 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  

(11-07-2012 03:38 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  OT: But am I the only one who thinks schools like Colorado and Washington are going to see improved recruiting success as a result of this new legislation? I wouldn't be suprised if several TCU players have already lined up their transfer papers.

Oh, I guarantee you those TCU guys already have papers!

^^^ I see what you did there.........

Prediction: If the Big 12/PAC-12 want to be successful in making a 7th bowl, they will need to get the ACC in too. The Big Ten/SEC are the most powerful ones in the room and if the ACC sides with them, it's a lot harder. At the end of the day though, I think it is agreed to (although in 3 years when this stuff is supposed to take place I think it will be the last of our concerns for non-sports reasons).

(11-07-2012 08:12 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Prediction: If the Big 12/PAC-12 want to be successful in making a 7th bowl, they will need to get the ACC in too. The Big Ten/SEC are the most powerful ones in the room and if the ACC sides with them, it's a lot harder. At the end of the day though, I think it is agreed to (although in 3 years when this stuff is supposed to take place I think it will be the last of our concerns for non-sports reasons).

First off, the ACC is not needed. If the Big 12 and PAC 12 want the Bowl vs the Non-AQ's then they will have it. They do not need the ACC which is not included in the Non-AQ's only because of ESpin involvement. lets face it, their performance on the field is worse then the BE's in the BCS era. If it weren't for the constant BS form the ESpin hype machine, the ACC and the BE's position would be reversed. So I disagree with your B1G version of events.

(11-07-2012 08:48 PM)Mestophalies Wrote:  

(11-07-2012 08:12 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Prediction: If the Big 12/PAC-12 want to be successful in making a 7th bowl, they will need to get the ACC in too. The Big Ten/SEC are the most powerful ones in the room and if the ACC sides with them, it's a lot harder. At the end of the day though, I think it is agreed to (although in 3 years when this stuff is supposed to take place I think it will be the last of our concerns for non-sports reasons).

First off, the ACC is not needed. If the Big 12 and PAC 12 want the Bowl vs the Non-AQ's then they will have it. They do not need the ACC which is not included in the Non-AQ's only because of ESpin involvement. lets face it, their performance on the field is worse then the BE's in the BCS era. If it weren't for the constant BS form the ESpin hype machine, the ACC and the BE's position would be reversed. So I disagree with your B1G version of events.

I agree, there are only 4 voices in that room. And even then it's only really three. The Pac and B1G alliance and the SEC. The Big XII has a smaller voice, as evidenced in the raid of the Big XII by those three leagues. They almost destroyed the Big XII in a cannibalistic feeding frenzy.

The Pac wants it so there will be a compromise.

the 7th bowl is dumb idea.
the b12 and p12 agreed to a 'what the market will bear' approach, well the market doesn't want it.
the conferences without a contract should get some wider criteria from the committee to be eligible for one of the 3 access bowls.

(11-07-2012 09:31 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  the 7th bowl is dumb idea.
the b12 and p12 agreed to a 'what the market will bear' approach, well the market doesn't want it.
the conferences without a contract should get some wider criteria from the committee to be eligible for one of the 3 access bowls.

Shhhhusshhhhhh, you're not invited so please move along......

Just more BS trying to keep the ACC in the old boys club. Good luck with that.

(11-07-2012 09:28 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(11-07-2012 08:48 PM)Mestophalies Wrote:  

(11-07-2012 08:12 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Prediction: If the Big 12/PAC-12 want to be successful in making a 7th bowl, they will need to get the ACC in too. The Big Ten/SEC are the most powerful ones in the room and if the ACC sides with them, it's a lot harder. At the end of the day though, I think it is agreed to (although in 3 years when this stuff is supposed to take place I think it will be the last of our concerns for non-sports reasons).

First off, the ACC is not needed. If the Big 12 and PAC 12 want the Bowl vs the Non-AQ's then they will have it. They do not need the ACC which is not included in the Non-AQ's only because of ESpin involvement. lets face it, their performance on the field is worse then the BE's in the BCS era. If it weren't for the constant BS form the ESpin hype machine, the ACC and the BE's position would be reversed. So I disagree with your B1G version of events.

I agree, there are only 4 voices in that room. And even then it's only really three. The Pac and B1G alliance and the SEC. The Big XII has a smaller voice, as evidenced in the raid of the Big XII by those three leagues. They almost destroyed the Big XII in a cannibalistic feeding frenzy.

The Pac wants it so there will be a compromise.

By Big XII do you mean Texas, OU & the 8 dirty dwarfs?

--------------
RU ready for Primetime!!!

No. Texas, OU, seven dirty dwarfs, and one burning couch.

(11-07-2012 10:06 PM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  No. Texas, OU, seven dirty dwarfs, and one burning couch.

I disagree. The Big 12 was chosen over the ACC for the other side of the Sugar Bowl because the SEC already has so many late season games against top ACC opponents. The ACC has every bit as much muscle in this overall though as the Big 12. I'm not down on the Big 12 at all (and it said it was much, much more stable/strong than most were seeing 2 years ago), but the ACC still has top brands in Miami and Florida State and the next batch of teams bring in a lot of interest in a lot of states (dominant teams in North Carolina, Virginia especially). The actual results in the BCS recently are meaningless as none of the leaders are actually going to expect that trend to continue.

I maybe wrong about the PAC-12/Big 12 needing to include the ACC here. Since the ACC got what it wanted in the Orange Bowl that might be enough. I'd be stunned though if the ACC is anyless powerful in these negotiations though than the Big 12 or PAC-12 (Big Ten and SEC are strongest though).

The ACC is not going to get a second tie-in, IMO. The B12 and P12 probably will. But nobody will know until all this shakes out. Will probably take months yet. We'll know more after the next BCS meetings take place.