Lots of angry readers this week. Was it something I said?
Michael in Louisville writes: Andrea your last post is garbage. You are making assumptions on things that have not even been decided yet. You are making the SEC/Big 12 game another top bowl game when it has not even been announced it will be. What about the SEC decades long tie-in with the Sugar Bowl? What about the Big 12 tie-in with the Fiesta Bowl? The conferences have already said the game might be played inside the existing bowls. And what about when their champs do go to the playoff? Who says the runner-up is automatically getting the bid? That has not been determined. The AQ going away is a bad thing for the Big East, but it had to happen. Opening up to 12 spots is a good thing and the objective to avoid anti-trust issues that are very real. I hope you can remain objective and resist feeding us garbage and making everything negative before it is even decided.
Andrew in the Big 12 writes: Howdy from Big 12 country big guns! Anyway, your article titled "New Playoff=old BCS" is way off. There are going to be six new "money" bowls and they will take turns hosting the two playoff games. In the scenario you listed with ACC, SEC, Pac-12 and Big 12 each having one playoff team, The ACC/Pac-12 teams would likely meet in either the Orange or the Rose. The Big 12/SEC would meet in the Champions bowl. That still leaves four bowls with open slots. Orange/Rose would have one open spot and the other three would have two spots each. So that is seven open spots NOT three. Granted, most if not all of those open spots will go to the big 5 conferences, but seven potential openings is alot better than only 1 or 2 like we have now.
Andrea Adelson: I think I need to clear up a few misconceptions out there for both Michael and Andrew. It has been established that the Champions Bowl is going to feature the champions of the SEC and Big 12. That means it will either be the Sugar Bowl, Fiesta Bowl or played at another bowl site entirely. Secondly, it also has been established that the runners-up from each of those conferences would still get a berth into its elite bowl tie-in should one representative be in the playoff. If you don't believe me, this is directly from is the ACC press release:
If the ACC Champion is identified as one of the top four teams by the Bowl Championship Series selection committee, then the ACC Champion will participate in the national semifinals and a replacement team from the ACC would participate in the Discover Orange Bowl.
Here is identical information on the Big Ten/Pac-12 in the Rose Bowl, and SEC/Big 12 in the Champions Bowl. Michael, I agree that 12 spots is better than 10, but the Big East is being held to a far different standard than the other conferences. The ACC champion doesn't have to finish in the top 12 and then hope it gets an at-large berth. The Big East does. Whatever you might think of me or my "garbage writing," you ought to be outraged at that double-standard.
Matt in Cincinnati writes: Will you please act like you (care) about the topic you are writing about or please find a new job. Your articles have been nothing but pathetic in your covering of the Big East football conference. Everybody gets that there has been movement, but guess what, all of us Big East fans are fine with where the conference is. Why might you ask? Because WVU was lost out on, Boise has been better past how many years. Pittsburgh was lost, Houston has been better past how many years. Syracuse was lost. Duke football has been better than Syracuse for how many years. Please act like you (care) or please go cover someone else. Your writing has been beyond pathetic and you know it.
Adelson: So, Matt, you are just fine with the idea that the Big East is no longer getting an automatic spot into the future elite bowl games? I really find it hard to believe that any ardent supporter of the Big East can sit there and be happy with the news of the last week. As I have explained many times, I don't work for the Big East. That means calling everything the way I see it, under no pretense or puppeteering from anybody. And if I didn't care about the future of the league, I would sit here and applaud and say, 'Bravo! commissioners, you got it right. Kick the Big East to the curb!' Instead, I have been repeatedly banging the drum that what is happening is completely unfair to the Big East, and the people in charge should be doing more to call attention to the injustice that is being done. I have repeatedly laid out facts, been a huge advocate for teams like Boise State, called others out on their misperceptions and tried to explain why the league is in this position today. If all that makes me pathetic, so be it.
John Henley in Albany, N.Y., writes: Andrea - the recent dramatic success of ACC commissioner John Swofford in securing a tie-in with the Orange Bowl once again illustrates the importance of a strong, competent commissioner. The fact that the Big East has still not chosen a permanent successor to John Marinatto speaks volumes about why the league continues to be a "day late and a dollar short" when it comes to successfully navigating the Big East through the treacherous waters of big-time college football. What's your take? Lack of skilled candidates or continued Big East politics?
Adelson: John, while I understand the skepticism, I don't think anybody expected a new commissioner in place right now. Since Marinatto resigned, we have been told that the process would last well into the summer, with the hope of hiring somebody by September. What really is unfortunate is the timing. The Big East was represented at these all-important meetings by an interim commissioner who doesn't have much grasp on the college football landscape. Somebody the other day asked me, 'What is Joe Bailey doing?' I said, 'What is he supposed to be doing?' The man was hired as a stopgap measure, not to be a miracle worker. It will be interesting to see how this hiring process does go down, though. This is not a job for the faint of heart.
James in Madison, N.J., writes: Hey Andrea, I was just reading about how Notre Dame can have a tie-in with the Orange Bowl. How can the Big East not get a tie-in? What would be the probability of the Big East getting a tie-in with the Orange Bowl, or any major bowl for that matter?
Adelson: None of the scenarios I have heard for an Orange Bowl tie-in include the Big East. I am not going to rule that out entirely, but I think some sort of deal with Notre Dame is more likely. The main problem the Big East has is that it doesn't have a current tie-in. Why would it get one now? Even senior associate commissioner Nick Carparelli told The Idaho Statesman that the league is considering not having a specific tie-in for its conference champion. "Honing in on one location for our champion might not make sense for anybody," he said.