.

#11 Indiana (6-1) finished ahead of #13 UNC in the CFP rankings, but UNC (7-3) got the last NY6 bowl slot instead, proving that there is something amiss with the way that the NY6 bowl slots are allocated.

So Indiana ended up playing (4-5) Mississippi in the Outback Bowl.

.

If there had been a "NY7" bowl, played between the top-ranked P5 team that didn't play in a NY6 bowl and the top-ranked G5 team that didn't play in a NY6 bowl, this "NY7 bowl" game could have been played on December 30, 2020:

#11 (6-1) Indiana vs. #14 (11-0) Coastal Carolina

That would have been a much better bowl game than Indiana vs. a Mississippi team with a losing (4-5) record, don't you think?

.

Some fans on the SBC and CUSA message boards are talking about the idea of a G5-sponsored "NY7" "challenge-bowl game" between the top G5 team that doesn't play in a NY6 bowl and the top P5 team that doesn't play in a NY6 bowl.

.

(05-30-2021 11:55 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  .

#11 Indiana (6-1) finished ahead of #13 UNC in the CFP rankings, but UNC (7-3) got the last NY6 bowl slot instead, proving that there is something amiss with the way that the NY6 bowl slots are allocated.

So Indiana ended up playing (4-5) Mississippi in the Outback Bowl.

.

If there had been a "NY7" bowl, played between the top-ranked P5 team that didn't play in a NY6 bowl and the top-ranked G5 team that didn't play in a NY6 bowl, this "NY7 bowl" game could have been played on December 30, 2020:

#11 (6-1) Indiana vs. #14 (11-0) Coastal Carolina

That would have been a much better bowl game than Indiana vs. a Mississippi team with a losing (4-5) record, don't you think?

.

Some fans on the SBC and CUSA message boards are talking about the idea of a G5-sponsored "NY7" "challenge-bowl game" between the top G5 team that doesn't play in a NY6 bowl and the top P5 team that doesn't play in a NY6 bowl.

.

If the Rose Bowl weren't a semifinal in the 2020-21 CFP, then Indiana would have gone to the Rose Bowl as the Big Ten rep, replacing playoff-bound Ohio State. (And UNC getting the Orange while higher CFP-ranked teams missed on the NY6 was due to their conference's contract -- if the Orange had been a semifinal, UNC wouldn't have been a NY6 team.)

As it was, Indiana LOST to that team with a losing record. And Coastal lost to Liberty - Liberty had a gaudy record, but Coastal was actually the first team with a winning record whom Liberty beat. So maybe Indiana and Coastal make poor poster children for a campaign against injustice.

(05-30-2021 01:06 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(05-30-2021 11:55 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  .

#11 Indiana (6-1) finished ahead of #13 UNC in the CFP rankings, but UNC (7-3) got the last NY6 bowl slot instead, proving that there is something amiss with the way that the NY6 bowl slots are allocated.

So Indiana ended up playing (4-5) Mississippi in the Outback Bowl.

.

If there had been a "NY7" bowl, played between the top-ranked P5 team that didn't play in a NY6 bowl and the top-ranked G5 team that didn't play in a NY6 bowl, this "NY7 bowl" game could have been played on December 30, 2020:

#11 (6-1) Indiana vs. #14 (11-0) Coastal Carolina

That would have been a much better bowl game than Indiana vs. a Mississippi team with a losing (4-5) record, don't you think?

.

Some fans on the SBC and CUSA message boards are talking about the idea of a G5-sponsored "NY7" "challenge-bowl game" between the top G5 team that doesn't play in a NY6 bowl and the top P5 team that doesn't play in a NY6 bowl.

.

If the Rose Bowl weren't a semifinal in the 2020-21 CFP, then Indiana would have gone to the Rose Bowl as the Big Ten rep, replacing playoff-bound Ohio State. (And UNC getting the Orange while higher CFP-ranked teams missed on the NY6 was due to their conference's contract -- if the Orange had been a semifinal, UNC wouldn't have been a NY6 team.)

As it was, Indiana LOST to that team with a losing record. And Coastal lost to Liberty - Liberty had a gaudy record, but Coastal was actually the first team with a winning record whom Liberty beat. So maybe Indiana and Coastal make poor poster children for a campaign against injustice.

Thanks for explaining how it happened.

That raises a related point, which is that the current set of bowl contracts are somewhat complicated, if not byzantine. Things would probably have to be simplified - - i.e., "rationalized" or made more rational in an expanded CFP.

While you have thankfully explained it very clearly, it the conference-bowl contracts seem to have messed up the seedings, causing a lower-ranked 7-3 team to get in ahead of a higher-ranked one-loss team.

It's possible that I may be "preaching to the choir" here...


.

If the CFP ends up expanding, and if it starts the way that the current CFP starts (with the NY6 bowls), then some - and possibly all of the NY6 bowl games would have to be played based on the team's seedings.

If that happens at some point in the next 10 years, it seems like it would be necessary for contracts that the P5 conferences have with the top tier bowls would have to be extensively rewritten.

If I understand it correctly, ending the exclusive , byzantine contract arrangements with the NY6 bowls would also make the system fairer to the non-P5 conference teams, which are currently allocated only one spot in a NY6 bowl game.

.

(05-30-2021 05:04 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(05-30-2021 01:06 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(05-30-2021 11:55 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  .

#11 Indiana (6-1) finished ahead of #13 UNC in the CFP rankings, but UNC (7-3) got the last NY6 bowl slot instead, proving that there is something amiss with the way that the NY6 bowl slots are allocated.

So Indiana ended up playing (4-5) Mississippi in the Outback Bowl.

.

If there had been a "NY7" bowl, played between the top-ranked P5 team that didn't play in a NY6 bowl and the top-ranked G5 team that didn't play in a NY6 bowl, this "NY7 bowl" game could have been played on December 30, 2020:

#11 (6-1) Indiana vs. #14 (11-0) Coastal Carolina

That would have been a much better bowl game than Indiana vs. a Mississippi team with a losing (4-5) record, don't you think?

.

Some fans on the SBC and CUSA message boards are talking about the idea of a G5-sponsored "NY7" "challenge-bowl game" between the top G5 team that doesn't play in a NY6 bowl and the top P5 team that doesn't play in a NY6 bowl.

.

If the Rose Bowl weren't a semifinal in the 2020-21 CFP, then Indiana would have gone to the Rose Bowl as the Big Ten rep, replacing playoff-bound Ohio State. (And UNC getting the Orange while higher CFP-ranked teams missed on the NY6 was due to their conference's contract -- if the Orange had been a semifinal, UNC wouldn't have been a NY6 team.)

As it was, Indiana LOST to that team with a losing record. And Coastal lost to Liberty - Liberty had a gaudy record, but Coastal was actually the first team with a winning record whom Liberty beat. So maybe Indiana and Coastal make poor poster children for a campaign against injustice.

Thanks for explaining how it happened.

That raises a related point, which is that the current set of bowl contracts are somewhat complicated, if not byzantine. Things would probably have to be simplified - - i.e., "rationalized" or made more rational in an expanded CFP.

While you have thankfully explained it very clearly, it the conference-bowl contracts seem to have messed up the seedings, causing a lower-ranked 7-3 team to get in ahead of a higher-ranked one-loss team.

It's possible that I may be "preaching to the choir" here...


.

If the CFP ends up expanding, and if it starts the way that the current CFP starts (with the NY6 bowls), then some - and possibly all of the NY6 bowl games would have to be played based on the team's seedings.

If that happens at some point in the next 10 years, it seems like it would be necessary for contracts that the P5 conferences have with the top tier bowls would have to be extensively rewritten.

If I understand it correctly, ending the exclusive , byzantine contract arrangements with the NY6 bowls would also make the system fairer to the non-P5 conference teams, which are currently allocated only one spot in a NY6 bowl game.

.

One could also have said "blame Oregon" too, because the PAC-12 champ was ranked #25 in the final CFP rankings but got the PAC's Rose-Bowl-replacement slot in the Fiesta. So both UNC and Oregon took a spot from a higher ranked team due to the contract structures...but the fact that two years out of three the same results would have had Indiana in the Rose Bowl makes it a much more satisfying example of the contract-bowl-conferences having to sleep in the bed they made.
Conversely, the non-contract-bowl-conference champ has been outside the top 12 and "stolen" an NY6 bid more years than not - Memphis, WMU, Houston, Boise.

I would say that the arrangements are only "byzantine" if one thinks the design was to secure the top #1-#12 teams slot in the top 6 bowls - it never was. The bowls like their traditional conferences, the conferences like their traditional bowls, and they all make money.
Think back to the establishment of the BCS - the big breakthrough there was the Rose Bowl playing along and agreeing to sometimes give up a PAC-Big10 matchup (but getting other concessions like its traditional timeslot). And the PAC and Big10 agreeing as well - they LOVE their stranglehold on the "Granddaddy of them All."
The semifinals in the four-team CFP invitational playoff rotate amongst the NY6 not just to share the wealth, but also to ensure that the Rose gets it traditional matchup more often than not, and the same with the Sugar Bowl and the SEC. BigXII to the Sugar, and ACC to the Orange are more recent, but the same theory applies. The Cotton Bowl wasn't a part of the BCS but was obviously happy to join the CFP NY6 structure with at-large bids. The Fiesta Bowl was part of the BCS but never had a contract for the champion of an "automatic qualifier" conference.
Neither the bowls nor the conferences will want to discard their traditional ties. And the bowls WILL have a voice in the structure. Those contracts are the source of the big money differences in the revenue distribution. A lot of the money the bowls pass on to the conferences comes from what ESPN pays them, but they don't have "AllState" and "Chick-fil-A" and "Capital One" and "PlayStation" and "GoodYear" attached to them for free.

It's awfully early to be specualting about what an expanded CFP starting with the 2026 season will look like. Even in a "simple" eight team playoff, will the NY6 semifinals and standalone final still be in place? Or will the NYx be quarterfinals, with standalone semifinals and final? Will it be 5-1-2 or Top 8? Either of those structures could push an NYx bowl to bet on a contract with the AAC champion - probably much less money than the Rose/Sugar/Orange contracts, maybe with no backfill for a #2 AAC team should the AAC team make the playoffs when that bowl doesn't host a quarter or semifinal - but some degree of certainty.
I went into a little more detail here: https://csnbbs.com/thread-920605-post-17...id17398911
and here: https://csnbbs.com/thread-921324-post-17...id17411036

A 6-2 structure (bid for the champs of AAC, ACC, Big10, BigXII, PAC12, and SEC) would be clear win for the "P6" campaign. But not too likely.
A 5-1-2 structure would give us the same opportunities as the other, current, non-contract-bowl conferences (not a "P6" win) but maybe just maybe the Peach or Cotton or Fiesta want a contract with the AAC when they're not a quarter/semi host (a "P6" win).
Top 8 could make Peach/Cotton/Fiesta want a contract with the AAC when they're not a quarter/semi host (a "P6" win).
I would like a 5-3 structure, so long as it said "highest-5-ranked conference champions" instead of naming the autonomous conferences - that would have had UCF in 2018 and Cincinnati in 2020 in. (Counterpoint, #9 PAC champ in 2018 would have "eye-tested" past UCF. Counter-counterpoint, #25 PAC champ in 2020 would NOT have done the same.)

That doesn't even get into other speculation -- if the NY6 are semifinals like in the current, what are the quarterfinals, home sites? Or lesser bowls get some glory a couple weeks earlier (cutting out bowl opportunities for 8 teams...)? Even more speculative questions in a 12-team playoff.
But those big name bowls currently in the NY6 WILL have a voice in how an expanded CFP is structured, and they have plenty of motivation NOT to just "rationalize" for seeds.