The other interesting thing is about how payouts might work in the non-top playoff bowls:
Reading between the lines, it looks like we could go back to the days of bowls figuring out who they could get, then going and trying to afford the payout to bring those teams in. In that regard, we could be in a place for much more interesting bowl match-ups. I haven't taken the time to figure out all of the bowl tie ins and it sounds like the world of bowl tie ins will live post playoff, but there is a chance there could be pretty significant re-order in how we, or more likely the college football power brokers, view the hierarchy of the bowls.
Does that mean the Pinstripe and Motor City Bowls are headed for oblivion? Who knows, but this change does present an opportunity for conference commissioners to re-think some of the bowl tie ins. Hopefully Slive is already working on building something that will give the SEC more than three B1G and three ACC match-ups and will put the SEC in a position to play games in more interesting places than Nashville and Birmingham (no offense meant to either place, but Nashville in December or the Gray Lady anytime is easily dwarfed by the chance to go to San Diego or Phoenix.
It will also be interesting to see if bowls get creative and try to buy their way into relevance. I'm thinking Mark Cuban putting $100 million on the table for the #5 and #6 teams...or Texas and Texas A&M....to play the afternoon of the National Championship game on Fox in San Antonio. Anything is possible right now.
One last thing that occurs to me, and it is absolutely tea leaf reading, but Swarbrick specifically mentioned the Rose, Champions, and Orange Bowl when talking about top tier tie-ins. Are the SEC and Big 12's automatic place in the Sugar and Fiesta Bowls a give away in this (or is it just that they won't be automatically playing in those games due to the new champion vs champion arrangement)?