Latest Word on CFB Playoff - Semis at "Floating Bowl Sites"

Submitted by MGoShoe on May 28th, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Dennis Dobbs has the latest gouge.

Commissioners in the process of molding the first major-college football playoff are leaning toward floating bowl sites for the semifinal games.

In fact, the predetermined rotation of semifinal sites in the bowls was described as a “non-starter” to There are still discussions over the sites of the entire three-game playoff (in or outside of bowls), but there seems to be a growing consensus that the bowls will at least host the semifinals. The Big Ten recently backed off an idea for campus sites to host semifinals.

While site issue is one of many yet to be resolved in the playoff discussion, this development does point out that the commissioners are sensitive to the fairness issue.

They do not want the No. 1 and No. 2 seeds having to “go on the road” in the semifinals. In other words, if the Sugar Bowl were anchored in advance to be a semifinal site, it would be possible that a No. 4 seed – say, LSU – would have the home-field advantage playing the No. 1-seeded opponent in the Superdome.

So in that instance, LSU as the SEC champ would forego its Sugar Bowl berth and instead would be the visiting team at the No. 1 seed's bowl tie in site. I presume that if No. 1 or No. 2 was an independent [scoffs at self] or from a conference without a fixed bowl tie in, the semifinal bowl game would be backed into by determining which conference champions had to stay or be moved from their tie in bowls based on BCS standings.

Since the Rose Bowl would be a "home" game for a B1G champion ranked 1 or 2, if that team was matched with a 3 or 4 ranked Pac-12 team, home could be in name only, especially if the Pac-12 rep was USC or UCLA. Even so, this is probably the best solution after campus sites (a non-starter option anyhow).



May 28th, 2012 at 5:45 PM ^

Darn. When I saw the title I thought the games were going to be played on aircraft carrier decks (so we could all be cool like Michigan State).


May 29th, 2012 at 2:09 AM ^

I was hoping that the games would be played in massive floating stadiums constructed in the Gulf of Mexico specifically for the purpose of hosting a college football playoff. That might actually make more sense than the way this is really playing out. 


May 28th, 2012 at 6:01 PM ^

The Big Ten should insist on using Indy as their home bowl site.  It is one of the better cities logistically set up to host a large sporting event (see superbowls and final 4s) and playing indoors takes away the warm weather teams objection to playing in a cold climate.


May 28th, 2012 at 7:08 PM ^

What nonsense. The bowls that aren't hosting these games will still play to half-empty stadiums.   Just like before.

I wouldn't  let any of these bowls within a mile's whiff of these playoffs until they totally overhaul their payout and money sharing system to reward the teams and not themselves. 

The Truth Hurts

May 28th, 2012 at 8:21 PM ^

If they come up with this then LSU should never be able to play in the Sugar Bowl,  USC or UCLA should never be able to play in the Rose Bowl for semifinals games everybody else is fair game except if the ACC and the Orange Bowl is involved and Miami is the champ.

mgoblue No.1

May 28th, 2012 at 8:51 PM ^

Why doesn't each conference have a "home" stadium within their geographic region? You could have  the B1G home site be Indy or Detroit, have SEC's be the Georgia Dome or Superdome, Big 12 play at Jerry World, and Pac-12 play at the Rose Bowl. Yes I know the bowl sites could get screwed but seriously who the hell cares


May 28th, 2012 at 9:11 PM ^

Our athetic directors and comissioner are so stupid.  We just gave away home field advantage to the SEC and Pac 12, and we could have had a Rose Bowl without incorporating it into the playoffs.


May 28th, 2012 at 10:05 PM ^

"With the addition of the Champions Bowl announced 10 days ago involving the SEC and Big 12, it is assumed that the Sugar would a) remain linked to the SEC and b) be involved in the four-team championship rotation." - from the article

I still maintain that unless we have a playoff system that directly involves conference champions, then no tie-ins can or should meaningfully exist unless some of the bowls want to maintain them for purposes of hosting the highest seeded teams in a particular conference that are not in the playoff structure (or  runners-up  in  conferences...however it works out). If it is going to be a four-team playoff based on seeding, then sites / bowls should be able to make bids on a level playing field.

I am not against the traditional bowls maintaining their connections to their traditions conferences, but they have to be prepared to not host the conference champions or the at-large teams to which they are accumstomed. The Champions Bowl seems like a shallow attempt at trying to monopolize the playoff landscape (right down to revenue) a few years out of every ten. 



May 28th, 2012 at 11:42 PM ^

that is how it will end up. Whatever system is chosen, it will be combo of illogical, sterile, poorly scheduled, unfair to the B1G, Pro-SEC, and just plain annoying. 


May 29th, 2012 at 7:16 AM ^

whatever we end up with it will be what the SEC and its Grand Poobah Mike Slive Want..Apparently the SEC now decides whats good for college football and the Big Ten just accepts whatever they say...