(04-29-2015 08:20 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 08:13 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 07:40 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You are mistaken if you believe this means the big 12 will simply add a championship game. They can't and the rules wont be changed for them. Even the ACC doesn't want to remove the 12 team requirement. NO ONE is helping the big 12 in this.

All this is is Bowlsby and the big 12 setting up their excuse for dissolution. That is how it works. That is how it is working.

^^^^^ This in spades!!!! If Fox gets the B1G, the Big 12 is on the chopping block. Book it.

Fox has to get part of The Big Ten T1 television rights.

The act of dissolution by the big 12 indirectly voids the GoR. That much is very true. What isn't true though is that such an act takes those Universities off the hook for the responsibilities of the GoR. They may not have to give their television rights to Fox anymore but they will still be held liable for the monetary damages that the dissolution caused to Fox.

So, part of the negotiation will be getting Fox to not press for damages. They won't do that unless they get something in return. I expect to see The Big Ten adjust their T1 contracts to something similar to what the PAC does but without the BTN having T1 rights too. The fact that the PAC puts some of their strong match ups on the PAC Network shows a weakness in the PAC and why they failed to get the top programs in the big 12. They knew they had to take a shot early but they failed.

You missed my point. Fox will split the Big 12 between the B1G and PAC since they will no longer need the Big 12. Better marketing options as the B1G and PAC already have Networks partially owned by FOX!!!

(04-29-2015 08:20 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 08:13 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 07:40 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You are mistaken if you believe this means the big 12 will simply add a championship game. They can't and the rules wont be changed for them. Even the ACC doesn't want to remove the 12 team requirement. NO ONE is helping the big 12 in this.

All this is is Bowlsby and the big 12 setting up their excuse for dissolution. That is how it works. That is how it is working.

^^^^^ This in spades!!!! If Fox gets the B1G, the Big 12 is on the chopping block. Book it.

Fox has to get part of The Big Ten T1 television rights.

The act of dissolution by the big 12 indirectly voids the GoR. That much is very true. What isn't true though is that such an act takes those Universities off the hook for the responsibilities of the GoR. They may not have to give their television rights to Fox anymore but they will still be held liable for the monetary damages that the dissolution caused to Fox.

So, part of the negotiation will be getting Fox to not press for damages. They won't do that unless they get something in return. I expect to see The Big Ten adjust their T1 contracts to something similar to what the PAC does but without the BTN having T1 rights too. The fact that the PAC puts some of their strong match ups on the PAC Network shows a weakness in the PAC and why they failed to get the top programs in the big 12. They knew they had to take a shot early but they failed.

That is very much untrue. Grant of rights exists to protect the media company's interests. When the Big 12 disbands both ESPN and FOX will be able to negotiate the schools' future homes so they will have more valuable content for the long term. They are not interested in money damages.

(04-29-2015 08:28 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 08:13 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 07:40 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You are mistaken if you believe this means the big 12 will simply add a championship game. They can't and the rules wont be changed for them. Even the ACC doesn't want to remove the 12 team requirement. NO ONE is helping the big 12 in this.

All this is is Bowlsby and the big 12 setting up their excuse for dissolution. That is how it works. That is how it is working.

^^^^^ This in spades!!!! If Fox gets the B1G, the Big 12 is on the chopping block. Book it.

I would think the opposite. Once Fox gets the B1G, then they can decide on $ for a big 12 expansion. The increase in the Big 12 contract came from Fox's end not ESPN's. ESPN even agreed to alternate Tier one games for the Big 12. Fox is way more jazzed about the Big 12 then ESPN is.

By opposite, if you mean that Fox doesn't get any Big Ten rights until AFTER the big 12 dissolves, then you would be right.

You are wrong though that Fox getting more money from The Big Ten would mean that suddenly they would be willing to pay more for big 12 expansion that previously they didn't think was worth the cost in payouts. One situation has nothing to do with the other.

(04-29-2015 08:31 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 08:20 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 08:13 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 07:40 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You are mistaken if you believe this means the big 12 will simply add a championship game. They can't and the rules wont be changed for them. Even the ACC doesn't want to remove the 12 team requirement. NO ONE is helping the big 12 in this.

All this is is Bowlsby and the big 12 setting up their excuse for dissolution. That is how it works. That is how it is working.

^^^^^ This in spades!!!! If Fox gets the B1G, the Big 12 is on the chopping block. Book it.

Fox has to get part of The Big Ten T1 television rights.

The act of dissolution by the big 12 indirectly voids the GoR. That much is very true. What isn't true though is that such an act takes those Universities off the hook for the responsibilities of the GoR. They may not have to give their television rights to Fox anymore but they will still be held liable for the monetary damages that the dissolution caused to Fox.

So, part of the negotiation will be getting Fox to not press for damages. They won't do that unless they get something in return. I expect to see The Big Ten adjust their T1 contracts to something similar to what the PAC does but without the BTN having T1 rights too. The fact that the PAC puts some of their strong match ups on the PAC Network shows a weakness in the PAC and why they failed to get the top programs in the big 12. They knew they had to take a shot early but they failed.

That is very much untrue. Grant of rights exists to protect the media company's interests. When the Big 12 disbands both ESPN and FOX will be able to negotiate the schools' future homes so they will have more valuable content for the long term. They are not interested in money damages.

Wrong. Fox would be run by absolute idiots if they did not use the situation to garner themselves some T1 rights with The Big Ten. If you think this all happening now has nothing to do with it being within the negotiation window for The Big Ten's television rights then you need to simply go back to the SEC forum.

What's funny is that if you simply remove the first sentence of your post, then the rest of it actually supports my post.

ESPN and Fox cannot negotiate the school's future homes. That is why ESPN plays so coy about how they passively offer direction to conferences and schools in regards to expansion. They are defending themselves from litigation. What you are saying they would do would open themselves up to that.

All that negotiating actually has to happen before the dissolution despite their attempts to make sure no one can see that happening.

(04-29-2015 08:30 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 08:20 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 08:13 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 07:40 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You are mistaken if you believe this means the big 12 will simply add a championship game. They can't and the rules wont be changed for them. Even the ACC doesn't want to remove the 12 team requirement. NO ONE is helping the big 12 in this.

All this is is Bowlsby and the big 12 setting up their excuse for dissolution. That is how it works. That is how it is working.

^^^^^ This in spades!!!! If Fox gets the B1G, the Big 12 is on the chopping block. Book it.

Fox has to get part of The Big Ten T1 television rights.

The act of dissolution by the big 12 indirectly voids the GoR. That much is very true. What isn't true though is that such an act takes those Universities off the hook for the responsibilities of the GoR. They may not have to give their television rights to Fox anymore but they will still be held liable for the monetary damages that the dissolution caused to Fox.

So, part of the negotiation will be getting Fox to not press for damages. They won't do that unless they get something in return. I expect to see The Big Ten adjust their T1 contracts to something similar to what the PAC does but without the BTN having T1 rights too. The fact that the PAC puts some of their strong match ups on the PAC Network shows a weakness in the PAC and why they failed to get the top programs in the big 12. They knew they had to take a shot early but they failed.

You missed my point. Fox will split the Big 12 between the B1G and PAC since they will no longer need the Big 12. Better marketing options as the B1G and PAC already have Networks partially owned by FOX!!!

You are right, I missed your point because I wouldn't have thought of something like that which doesn't make any sense. The big 12 won't be split just between The Big Ten and The PAC.

Fox isn't the only Network involved in the big 12's GoR. They are the network that has the most to lose in the situation where the conference is dissolved.

(04-29-2015 08:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 08:28 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 08:13 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 07:40 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You are mistaken if you believe this means the big 12 will simply add a championship game. They can't and the rules wont be changed for them. Even the ACC doesn't want to remove the 12 team requirement. NO ONE is helping the big 12 in this.

All this is is Bowlsby and the big 12 setting up their excuse for dissolution. That is how it works. That is how it is working.

^^^^^ This in spades!!!! If Fox gets the B1G, the Big 12 is on the chopping block. Book it.

I would think the opposite. Once Fox gets the B1G, then they can decide on $ for a big 12 expansion. The increase in the Big 12 contract came from Fox's end not ESPN's. ESPN even agreed to alternate Tier one games for the Big 12. Fox is way more jazzed about the Big 12 then ESPN is.

By opposite, if you mean that Fox doesn't get any Big Ten rights until AFTER the big 12 dissolves, then you would be right.

You are wrong though that Fox getting more money from The Big Ten would mean that suddenly they would be willing to pay more for big 12 expansion that previously they didn't think was worth the cost in payouts. One situation has nothing to do with the other.

Not saying its going to happen but, Fox could end up owning B1G Tier 1 and 51% of BTN, Pac12 partial Tier 1 and 50/51% of Pac12N, Big 12 partial Tier 1 and with expansion, a possible Big 12 Championship Game and the possibility of a Big 12 Network.

Perhaps Texas is allowed to walk away as an Independent with the LHN in tow as compensation. This since the rest of the properties involved were primarily Fox properties anyway.

I don't know and am not in the business but, it sounds plausible to me. Then Fox could move pieces, Urm. The dissolved remnants of the Big 12 could seek homes within the B1G and PAC.

If you were to divide the Big 12 up, their 10 teams would be exactly what is necessary for the rest of the P5 Conferences to get to 16. I do believe that UC will replace Iowa State among the P5. I'm crazy like that.

(04-29-2015 08:46 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 08:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 08:28 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 08:13 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 07:40 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You are mistaken if you believe this means the big 12 will simply add a championship game. They can't and the rules wont be changed for them. Even the ACC doesn't want to remove the 12 team requirement. NO ONE is helping the big 12 in this.

All this is is Bowlsby and the big 12 setting up their excuse for dissolution. That is how it works. That is how it is working.

^^^^^ This in spades!!!! If Fox gets the B1G, the Big 12 is on the chopping block. Book it.

I would think the opposite. Once Fox gets the B1G, then they can decide on $ for a big 12 expansion. The increase in the Big 12 contract came from Fox's end not ESPN's. ESPN even agreed to alternate Tier one games for the Big 12. Fox is way more jazzed about the Big 12 then ESPN is.

By opposite, if you mean that Fox doesn't get any Big Ten rights until AFTER the big 12 dissolves, then you would be right.

You are wrong though that Fox getting more money from The Big Ten would mean that suddenly they would be willing to pay more for big 12 expansion that previously they didn't think was worth the cost in payouts. One situation has nothing to do with the other.

Not saying its going to happen but, Fox could end up owning B1G Tier 1 and 51% of BTN, Pac12 partial Tier 1 and 50/51% of Pac12N, Big 12 partial Tier 1 and with expansion, a possible Big 12 Championship Game and the possibility of a Big 12 Network.

All that is correct except for the parts about the big 12. Some of the outcomes you are stating are mutually exclusive.

Thoughts:

1. This pretty much confirms what I figured in that the Big 12 will add a championship game as soon as/if championship game deregulation passes. I hoped they wouldn't (love the old school set-up), but figured it was a foregone conclusion regardless of any lip service to keeping the current set-up.

2. I don't know why anyone is guessing this makes it any less likely at all that de-regulation will happen. Maybe the votes aren't there, but I'd bet they are and this doesn't really change anything. Everyone knows the Big 12 can get a CCG with expansion if necessary, but forcing the Big 12 to go that route isn't something the other conferences are going to be apt to do. The powers conferences are for the most part cordial with each other unless they have a very direct interest in conflict and this isn't one. Even if this is right and not having a championship game costs the Big 12 more than it helps them, what's really the cost to the other conferences? The Big 12 will get some in the playoff regardless of set-up. Even if this hurts the conference's playoff hopes, what does adding a CCG do? It might get them a team they wouldn't have gotten maybe every 4-5 years? That's about one playoff spot from each of the other 4 conferences every 20 years and that's assuming the reverse doesn't also hold true several years (where they benefit from not having a CCG).

3. How did we so quickly forget all those years the CCGs had top teams lose? Let's just look at this year. The Big Ten had a championship game that probably pushed Ohio State in, but the SEC, ACC, and PAC-12 all had championship games that could have thrown teams out and were unlikely to push a different team in. Replay that same set-up 10 times and my guess is that at least 8, the Big 12 will have one team in and sometimes two. What we had going into the final weekend of the year is exactly what the Big 12 should hope for every year even if it didn't work out this year.

4. Dissolving the conference is not in the cards at this point and I'd be stunned if it's even considered for a moment. If someone wanted most the other members of the Big 12 not named Texas they could have had them before the grant of rights, but they didn't take them. Heck, the PAC-12 actually voted down Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. The most profitable set-up for the Big 12 teams for the time being is in the Big 12.

5. If conference championship game de-regulation does fail, it will be interesting. I'd say about 85-90% chance it passes, but if it fails, expansion is possible. I don't think they'll jump at it though and will give a few more years to see how things pan out.

(04-29-2015 09:27 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Thoughts:

1. This pretty much confirms what I figured in that the Big 12 will add a championship game as soon as/if championship game deregulation passes. I hoped they wouldn't (love the old school set-up), but figured it was a foregone conclusion regardless of any lip service to keeping the current set-up.

2. I don't know why anyone is guessing this makes it any less likely at all that de-regulation will happen. Maybe the votes aren't there, but I'd bet they are and this doesn't really change anything. Everyone knows the Big 12 can get a CCG with expansion if necessary, but forcing the Big 12 to go that route isn't something the other conferences are going to be apt to do. The powers conferences are for the most part cordial with each other unless they have a very direct interest in conflict and this isn't one. Even if this is right and not having a championship game costs the Big 12 more than it helps them, what's really the cost to the other conferences? The Big 12 will get some in the playoff regardless of set-up. Even if this hurts the conference's playoff hopes, what does adding a CCG do? It might get them a team they wouldn't have gotten maybe every 4-5 years? That's about one playoff spot from each of the other 4 conferences every 20 years and that's assuming the reverse doesn't also hold true several years (where they benefit from not having a CCG).

3. How did we so quickly forget all those years the CCGs had top teams lose? Let's just look at this year. The Big Ten had a championship game that probably pushed Ohio State in, but the SEC, ACC, and PAC-12 all had championship games that could have thrown teams out and were unlikely to push a different team in. Replay that same set-up 10 times and my guess is that at least 8, the Big 12 will have one team in and sometimes two. What we had going into the final weekend of the year is exactly what the Big 12 should hope for every year even if it didn't work out this year.

4. Dissolving the conference is not in the cards at this point and I'd be stunned if it's even considered for a moment. If someone wanted most the other members of the Big 12 not named Texas they could have had them before the grant of rights, but they didn't take them. Heck, the PAC-12 actually voted down Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. The most profitable set-up for the Big 12 teams for the time being is in the Big 12.

5. If conference championship game de-regulation does fail, it will be interesting. I'd say about 85-90% chance it passes, but if it fails, expansion is possible. I don't think they'll jump at it though and will give a few more years to see how things pan out.

We are once again in agreement.

(04-29-2015 09:27 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Thoughts:

1. This pretty much confirms what I figured in that the Big 12 will add a championship game as soon as/if championship game deregulation passes. I hoped they wouldn't (love the old school set-up), but figured it was a foregone conclusion regardless of any lip service to keeping the current set-up.

2. I don't know why anyone is guessing this makes it any less likely at all that de-regulation will happen. Maybe the votes aren't there, but I'd bet they are and this doesn't really change anything. Everyone knows the Big 12 can get a CCG with expansion if necessary, but forcing the Big 12 to go that route isn't something the other conferences are going to be apt to do. The powers conferences are for the most part cordial with each other unless they have a very direct interest in conflict and this isn't one. Even if this is right and not having a championship game costs the Big 12 more than it helps them, what's really the cost to the other conferences? The Big 12 will get some in the playoff regardless of set-up. Even if this hurts the conference's playoff hopes, what does adding a CCG do? It might get them a team they wouldn't have gotten maybe every 4-5 years? That's about one playoff spot from each of the other 4 conferences every 20 years and that's assuming the reverse doesn't also hold true several years (where they benefit from not having a CCG).

3. How did we so quickly forget all those years the CCGs had top teams lose? Let's just look at this year. The Big Ten had a championship game that probably pushed Ohio State in, but the SEC, ACC, and PAC-12 all had championship games that could have thrown teams out and were unlikely to push a different team in. Replay that same set-up 10 times and my guess is that at least 8, the Big 12 will have one team in and sometimes two. What we had going into the final weekend of the year is exactly what the Big 12 should hope for every year even if it didn't work out this year.

4. Dissolving the conference is not in the cards at this point and I'd be stunned if it's even considered for a moment. If someone wanted most the other members of the Big 12 not named Texas they could have had them before the grant of rights, but they didn't take them. Heck, the PAC-12 actually voted down Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. The most profitable set-up for the Big 12 teams for the time being is in the Big 12.

5. If conference championship game de-regulation does fail, it will be interesting. I'd say about 85-90% chance it passes, but if it fails, expansion is possible. I don't think they'll jump at it though and will give a few more years to see how things pan out.

Prepare to be stunned. That's what they want and that is what is expected. At least I have prepared you in advance so that you wont be too stunned.

I would say you are pulling your percentages right out of your ass though.

(04-29-2015 07:20 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 07:12 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I would predict a 12-0 or 11-1 ND being left out of the playoffs for 13-0 and 12-1 P5 teams would probably be the final move for ND to move into a conference.

"Swarbrick said that until Notre Dame is in the playoff conversation, he can't evaluate it.

"I'd like to be in the position to have to worry about that," he quipped.

"It's not that there's a 13th game," he said. "It's always going to be against a really good opponent. It's the conference championship game. It's not the aggregate number, it's who you're playing. There are going to be years where a team looks like they're going to get in and gets upset in their conference championship game and they don't get in. Did the 13th game help them? No. I'm not saying that's a reason to do it or not do it, I'm just saying one year's worth of experience with this system is way too small to draw any conclusions about how it will play out over time."

Which is why I like Jack Swarbrick. He understands that one year's worth of data is not a reason to get your panties in a wad.

Cheers,
Neil

The percentages are my guesses only. I make no claims otherwise. That's just how I see things based on the evidence presented.

He1nousOne, if your scenarios emerge, it will make this board very interesting and more than fun than it's been. I just don't see the evidence for them though. The only conferences pushing CCG de-regulation so far have been the Big 12 and ACC and the set-ups they want have been mostly shown (Big 12 wanting a championship game with 10; ACC wanting to end round robin in division play or other tweaks). Meanwhile, every move so far has suggested this is done in bits and pieces with no grand plan and every move has shown conferences have amazing resilience (the Big East lost almost every member, but legally continues on as the American to this day). We've also seen most the big players happy with the current set-up including Texas and we've seen the networks essentially up Big 12 pay when they weren't required to just to keep the Big 12 around when the PAC-10 was threatening.

If we see news reports from the media suggesting your scenarios are coming about I'll switch sides, but I've seen nothing to suggest that to me at this point. If you're right in the end, I'll gladly concede and congratulate you.

(04-29-2015 09:41 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 07:20 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 07:12 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I would predict a 12-0 or 11-1 ND being left out of the playoffs for 13-0 and 12-1 P5 teams would probably be the final move for ND to move into a conference.

"Swarbrick said that until Notre Dame is in the playoff conversation, he can't evaluate it.

"I'd like to be in the position to have to worry about that," he quipped.

"It's not that there's a 13th game," he said. "It's always going to be against a really good opponent. It's the conference championship game. It's not the aggregate number, it's who you're playing. There are going to be years where a team looks like they're going to get in and gets upset in their conference championship game and they don't get in. Did the 13th game help them? No. I'm not saying that's a reason to do it or not do it, I'm just saying one year's worth of experience with this system is way too small to draw any conclusions about how it will play out over time."

Which is why I like Jack Swarbrick. He understands that one year's worth of data is not a reason to get your panties in a wad.

Cheers,
Neil

Brett McMurphy @McMurphyESPN
· 2h 2 hours ago
Bill Hancock on @CFBPlayoff: "We need to emphasis more the importance of the conference championships"

I don't interpret conference championships quite the same way with Notre Dame. Yes winning a conference counts for something, but so should loosing a conference. Notre Dame neither wins nor looses a conference and thus aren't going to be dinged so much in relation to conference winners while conference runner-ups will be.

In the end, it's still probably a disadvantage, but not an overwhelming one.

(04-29-2015 09:45 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 09:41 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 07:20 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 07:12 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I would predict a 12-0 or 11-1 ND being left out of the playoffs for 13-0 and 12-1 P5 teams would probably be the final move for ND to move into a conference.

"Swarbrick said that until Notre Dame is in the playoff conversation, he can't evaluate it.

"I'd like to be in the position to have to worry about that," he quipped.

"It's not that there's a 13th game," he said. "It's always going to be against a really good opponent. It's the conference championship game. It's not the aggregate number, it's who you're playing. There are going to be years where a team looks like they're going to get in and gets upset in their conference championship game and they don't get in. Did the 13th game help them? No. I'm not saying that's a reason to do it or not do it, I'm just saying one year's worth of experience with this system is way too small to draw any conclusions about how it will play out over time."

Which is why I like Jack Swarbrick. He understands that one year's worth of data is not a reason to get your panties in a wad.

Cheers,
Neil

Brett McMurphy @McMurphyESPN
· 2h 2 hours ago
Bill Hancock on @CFBPlayoff: "We need to emphasis more the importance of the conference championships"

Which they already did in the 1st year of the CFP. And luckily it worked out in every instance. But if Arizona had pulled the upset over Oregon and/or Georgia Tech had pulled the upset over FSU, then TCU and/or Baylor would likely have been in the playoffs, despite not having a CCG.

If I'm the AD at Notre Dame, I'm definitely taking a wait and see attitude on this. There truly is no better stance for him to take.

Cheers,
Neil

I think they are pretty important right now. I mean if tcu and baylor where in the same big 12 division in a 12 team big 12, the same issues would have occurred on who is better. The real problem is 5 power leagues with a 4 team playoff. Jump to 8 with 5 auto bids and 3 at large and your problems are solved. All that is needed is another round 2nd week of december.

(04-29-2015 09:50 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 09:45 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 09:41 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 07:20 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 07:12 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I would predict a 12-0 or 11-1 ND being left out of the playoffs for 13-0 and 12-1 P5 teams would probably be the final move for ND to move into a conference.

"Swarbrick said that until Notre Dame is in the playoff conversation, he can't evaluate it.

"I'd like to be in the position to have to worry about that," he quipped.

"It's not that there's a 13th game," he said. "It's always going to be against a really good opponent. It's the conference championship game. It's not the aggregate number, it's who you're playing. There are going to be years where a team looks like they're going to get in and gets upset in their conference championship game and they don't get in. Did the 13th game help them? No. I'm not saying that's a reason to do it or not do it, I'm just saying one year's worth of experience with this system is way too small to draw any conclusions about how it will play out over time."

Which is why I like Jack Swarbrick. He understands that one year's worth of data is not a reason to get your panties in a wad.

Cheers,
Neil

Brett McMurphy @McMurphyESPN
· 2h 2 hours ago
Bill Hancock on @CFBPlayoff: "We need to emphasis more the importance of the conference championships"

Which they already did in the 1st year of the CFP. And luckily it worked out in every instance. But if Arizona had pulled the upset over Oregon and/or Georgia Tech had pulled the upset over FSU, then TCU and/or Baylor would likely have been in the playoffs, despite not having a CCG.

If I'm the AD at Notre Dame, I'm definitely taking a wait and see attitude on this. There truly is no better stance for him to take.

Cheers,
Neil

This, nothing to panic about, just more monitoring the landscape. Jack has said a few times if it's necessary to have a C.C. on the resume to make the playoff we will rethink independence. But no need for that now, nothing has changed yet. Heck first we actually have to be good enough to make it. lol

(04-29-2015 09:45 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The percentages are my guesses only. I make no claims otherwise. That's just how I see things based on the evidence presented.

He1nousOne, if your scenarios emerge, it will make this board very interesting and more than fun than it's been. I just don't see the evidence for them though. The only conferences pushing CCG de-regulation so far have been the Big 12 and ACC and the set-ups they want have been mostly shown (Big 12 wanting a championship game with 10; ACC wanting to end round robin in division play or other tweaks). Meanwhile, every move so far has suggested this is done in bits and pieces with no grand plan and every move has shown conferences have amazing resilience (the Big East lost almost every member, but legally continues on as the American to this day). We've also seen most the big players happy with the current set-up including Texas and we've seen the networks essentially up Big 12 pay when they weren't required to just to keep the Big 12 around when the PAC-10 was threatening.

If we see news reports from the media suggesting your scenarios are coming about I'll switch sides, but I've seen nothing to suggest that to me at this point. If you're right in the end, I'll gladly concede and congratulate you.

You are absolutely right about there not being much evidence. That is purposefully done.

Just because it's just the ACC and big 12 talking about deregulation, that doesn't mean the other conferences don't care about it or that they will just go ahead and throw a life preserver to the big 12 so that the big 12 can continue to operate under different rules than the other four.

Just because you see single events happening in "bits and pieces", that doesn't mean there isn't any planning going on behind the scenes. No planning generally means failure in the professional world.

I don't see Texas as being happy with the current situation, not at all.

If the big 12 GoR was absolutely about keeping the big 12 around for the long haul then why such a short time period for the GoR? The Big Ten's BTN GoR is of a much longer time period.

I am fine with folks needing to follow the hand outs that media pundits hand out after they have received their hand outs but as I have said before...I am not a herd animal and I don't prefer hand outs.

I know I come off as brash and rude, that is purposeful. I know you don't take it personally.

(04-29-2015 09:49 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I don't interpret conference championships quite the same way with Notre Dame. Yes winning a conference counts for something, but so should loosing a conference. Notre Dame neither wins nor looses a conference and thus aren't going to be dinged so much in relation to conference winners while conference runner-ups will be.

In the end, it's still probably a disadvantage, but not an overwhelming one.

I don't think it is a given that Notre Dame gets dinged in the same way that TCU/Baylor did but TCU/Baylor would have made it in if Ohio State didn't beat Wisconsin in a NEUTRAL SITE championship game at the end of the season.

That neutral site championship status is deemed as extremely important because of the similar nature that game bears to the playoff games.

That is why the committee see's it as such a game changer.

Notre Dame is different though, they don't care if they lose out due to losses. They just want to make sure that they have a good chance of making it. As long as the Notre Dame brand remains as strong as it is, then they have no reason to worry about losing that chance to make it while remaining a football indie. I talk about Texas going for a similar deal. It is possible because Texas is of similar value to ESPN and The Committee.