One of the victims of conference realignment. A nice bowl with a long history has found itself without a good 2nd team. The SEC would place the Gator behind the bowls in Orlando, Tampa and Dallas, meaning the ACC would have to face a #5 SEC team. Not very appealing to the ACC. The Big 12 is a long ways away and unlikely to send better than a #5 (Dallas & San Diego are firmly #2 and #3, San Antonio and Houston are unlikely to let #4 go to Florida). #7 hasn't brought too many fans to Orlando for the Tangerine, although it has only been 2 years.

There is a lot of potential for bowl realignment and re-thinking. I believe someone at some time in the last 6 months started a thread on bowl realignment.

From my perspective, I would prefer the 2nd place team (that doesnt get the bcs) goto a different bowl every year. This should also include the top team(s) from the non-BCS conferences as well.

The major players in these bowls (Cotton, Outback, Gator, Holiday, etc) could come together like the BCS and pool their payout. They could pick only 1 team before they could pick again. I'm not sure if this would add any excitement, but I for one am tired of only seeing SEC vs. Big10 every Jan 1st in the Outback bowl.

I doubt the Big10 and SEC go for it because they have most to lose... but it could creat some diverse matchups for a change between conferences.

Heck, why not say a Texas vs. LSU in the Outback bowl or a Ohio State vs. FSU in the Gator? It certainly would mix up the matchups and maybe have the best games available outside the BCS.

Thoughts?

Some flexibility definitely would be nice, and some BCS-like conditions have been offered up here and elsewhere for all the second and third tier bowls. The catch is how all the conferences are looking for financial certainty and how precious the New Year's Day spots have become. There is a steep dropoff in payments after those 2nd tier games, such that there is marginal cost benefit to the participants and most programs play them just for the exposure and extra practice time.

I think it truly will require a form of BCS-like conditions, wherein the pool of participants is assured $X million dollars in return for simply being allotted a spot in one of several bowls. But will the folks at the Outback and Capital One Bowls (for example) be willing to risk their position in the pecking order?

This is only necessary for teams whose leaguse choose not to equally share bowl revenue.

The Big Ten and SEC, and I think Pac Ten, pool all the bowl revenue (minus small stipend) and then dole equal parts out to everyone, so there is no real payment issue for individual teams.

Now in the Big Twelve and Big East, and I think ACC, their uneven splits (participant gets a big chunk) leave this sort of problem unaddressed. If they took care of their own houses, their members wouldn't have this problem.

The ACC shares it's post-season revenues equally, after subtracting the travel costs (and possibly the most modest of awards) from the income. Unless they've altered it I believe only the Bige East does the imbalanced sharing, and that financial uncertainty is one of the reasons Miami sought to leave.

I'm sorry if I'm not reading you right but I'm suggesting that the leagues that DO have the equal revenue sharing are the ones requiring the financial security. Every team in those leagues set their budget around a projected income provided by the conference, a large part of which includes bowl and BCS revenue. Take that out of the mix and every team not named Tennessee or Michigan (etc) goes scrambling to protect against a potential loss of $1-4 million dollars.

Take the SEC. The Outback, Capital One, Peach and Cotton Bowls provide the league roughly $10 mil. If they knew they'd get four bowl spots and that same $10 mil, I don't think they'd care as much if it was in the Gator Bowl, the Sun Bowl, whatever, or whether they were playing the B10, B12, ACC, PAC 10. Just provide the check and some air time and then all is well.

The ACC shares it's post-season revenues equally, after subtracting the travel costs (and possibly the most modest of awards) from the income. Unless they've altered it I believe only the Bige East does the imbalanced sharing, and that financial uncertainty is one of the reasons Miami sought to leave.

I'm sorry if I'm not reading you right but I'm suggesting that the leagues that DO have the equal revenue sharing are the ones requiring the financial security. Every team in those leagues set their budget around a projected income provided by the conference, a large part of which includes bowl and BCS revenue. Take that out of the mix and every team not named Tennessee or Michigan (etc) goes scrambling to protect against a potential loss of $1-4 million dollars.

Take the SEC. The Outback, Capital One, Peach and Cotton Bowls provide the league roughly $10 mil. If they knew they'd get four bowl spots and that same $10 mil, I don't think they'd care as much if it was in the Gator Bowl, the Sun Bowl, whatever, or whether they were playing the B10, B12, ACC, PAC 10. Just provide the check and some air time and then all is well.

I'm very much in favor of it. The Orlando and Tampa bowls are probably not. Although the SEC is not real happy with the Outback right now. Still, I think the Big 10 and SEC will not participate this time around. Maybe in 5 years.

Georgia is getting kind of tired of the Outback. The Big 12 is already looking for alternatives. Texas fans were hoping for the Alamo last year instead of the Cotton or Holiday. They had been to one of those 2 for 5 years in a row. They didn't exactly storm the gates in San Diego. When they got someplace different this year (and very rare) in the Rose, they sold out immediately and started buying up Michigan tickets.

Perhaps the ACC/SEC/Big 12 could work out something involving the Gator and Cotton or Cotton and Outback. Maybe the Big 12 and numerically challenged 10 could work out something with the Outback and Holiday.

Usually there is enough flexibility after the 2nd tier that you don't repeat too often, but the Holiday, Cotton, Outback and Citrus have a lot of repeats. The Gator is just below that group, but might be able to up the $ with the right matchups.

The biggest problems seem to be with the SEC and Big 12 who have a top half and bottom half. The Big 10 and Pac 10 have had so much variability in where teams end up in recent years and the ACC is basically a new conference now.

Orlando (1992-):
Alabama: 1994
Arkansas: 1998
Auburn: 2000, 2002
Florida: 1997, 1999
Georgia: 1992, 2003
LSU: 2004
Tennessee*: 1993, 1995-1996, 2001 (Spurrier was right)

Dallas (1998-):
Arkansas: 1999, 2001
Louisiana State: 2002
Mississippi: 2003
Mississippi State: 1998
Tennessee: 2000, 2004

Tampa (1995-):
Alabama: 1996
Auburn: 1995
Florida: 2002-2003
Georgia*: 1997, 1999, 2004
Kentucky: 1998
South Carolina: 2000-2001

Atlanta (1993-):
Auburn: 1997, 2001
Florida: 2004
Georgia: 1995, 1998
Kentucky: 1993
Louisiana State: 1996, 2000
Mississippi State: 1994, 1999 (1992 as at-large)
Tennessee: 2002-2003

Nashville (1998-):
Alabama*: 1998, 2004 (probably more of an indictment of the plight of 'Bama than anything else)
Arkansas: 2002
Auburn:2003
Georgia: 2001
Kentucky: 1999
Mississippi: 2000

Shreveport (1995-):
Alabama: 2001
Arkansas: 2003
Auburn: 1996
Louisiana State: 1995, 1997
Mississippi*: 1998-1999, 2002 (3-0; 4-1 all-time)
Mississippi State: 2000

Dallas (1995-):
Colorado: 1995
Kansas State: 1996, 2000
Oklahoma: 2001
Oklahoma State: 2002
Texas*: 1998-1999, 2002 (this used to mean something)
Texas A&M: 1997, 2004

San Diego (1995-):
Colorado: 1996
Kansas State*: 1995, 1999, 2002 (weren't two of these 1-loss teams?)
Missouri: 1997
Nebraska: 1998
Texas: 2000-2001, 2003 (Pasadena that much sweeter)
Texas Tech: 2004

San Antonio (1994-):
Baylor: 1994
Colorado: 2002 (vomit-inducing OT loss to 7-6 team)
Kansas State: 1998 (3/4 rule impetus)
Nebraska: 2000, 2003
Oklahoma State: 1997, 2004
Texas A&M: 1995, 1999
Texas Tech: 1996, 2001

Shreveport (1998-):
Iowa State*: 2001, 2004 (weird)
Missouri: 2003
Nebraska: 2002
Oklahoma: 1999
Texas A&M: 2000
Texas Tech: 1998

Houston (2000-):
Colorado: 2004
Oklahoma State: 2002
Texas A&M: 2001
Texas Tech*: 2000, 2003 (Alamo, Astro, Reliant)

Orlando (2002-):
Kansas: 2003
Texas Tech: 2002

Orlando (1992-):
Iowa: 2004
Michigan: 1998, 2000-2001
Michigan State: 1999
Northwestern: 1996
Ohio State: 1992, 1994-1995
Penn State: 1993, 1997, 2002
Purdue: 2003

Tampa (1993-):
Iowa: 2003
Michigan: 1993, 1996, 2002
Ohio State: 2000-2001
Penn State: 1995, 1998
Purdue: 1999
Wisconsin: 1994, 1997, 2004

San Antonio (1995-):
Iowa: 1996, 2001
Michigan: 1995
Michigan State: 2003
Northwestern: 2000
Ohio State: 2004
Penn State: 1999
Purdue: 1997-1998
Wisconsin: 2002

El Paso (1995-):
Iowa: 1995, 1997
Michigan State: 1996
Minnesota: 1999, 2003
Purdue*: 2001-2002, 2004
Wisconsin: 2000

San Diego (1995-):
Arizona: 1998
Arizona State: 1999, 2002
California: 2004 (second in-state team all-time: SDSU, 1986)
Oregon: 2000
Washington: 1996, 1999, 2001
Washington State: 2003

El Paso (1995-):
Arizona State: 1997, 2004
UCLA: 2000
Oregon: 1999, 2003
Southern California: 1998
Stanford: 1996
Washington: 1995, 2002
Washington State: 2001

Las Vegas (2001-):
UCLA: 2002, 2004
Oregon State: 2003
Southern California: 2001

Phoenix (2002-):
Cal: 2003
Oregon State: 2002, 2004

If the Gator Bowl insists on "unfettered access" to Notre Dame each year and potentially holding a multi-team conference in limbo, this reveals blatant favoritism, defies any semblance of open access, and is contrary to the spirit of selecting the best available within defined parameters.

While the BE accepts such, others BCS conferences should think better, even if they are seeking to have as many bowl tie-ins as possible. This appears too conditional, saying, "one of ours will be the runner-up if ND isn't picked".

The NCAA should not sanction bowls that declare one school its prime choice, regardless if it is Notre Dame as an independent.

Does anyone know the specifics of Notre Dame's relationship with the Cotton Bowl? At least Notre Dame has been offered a (conditional) individual bowl bid prior to the season. Penn State had such a deal to play in the Blockbuster Bowl (January 1, 1993) in the year preceding its football entry into the Big Ten.

As Penn State had a subpar (7-4) season and played (9-3) Stanford (2nd pick from Pac-10/7th pick from coalition pool) in the Blockbuster, the arrangement appeared to work relatively well (at least from Penn State's standpoint). Anyone know if there was a contingency plan if Penn State was ranked #1/#2 or otherwise more attractive to one of the 'Tier I' bowls (Cotton, Fiesta, Orange, Sugar)? Would they still have been obligated to the Blockbuster? Note that the Big Ten was not a party to the Bowl Coalition (1992-1994)...

Should read: "At least Notre Dame has NEVER been offered a (conditional) individual bowl bid prior to the season." *(At least not to my knowledge)*