(09-03-2022 08:32 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think we need to put this in context.

We already knew the members of FBS were working together to separate football governance from the NCAA. That is a breakaway...just not a complete and clean one.

I do agree with you that sometimes things move slow. That's definitely the track record. I also agree that the Presidents tend to be risk averse, but keep in mind that the new legal framework is forcing them to look for new revenue. That is in part why they went ahead and approved the 12-team model. They did it on the eve of the season for 2 reasons...1) the Big Ten's move to take USC/UCLA has caused further disruption to the established order and it became obvious the defeat of this playoff plan last year wasn't born from a place of altruism and 2) the Presidents want to get it done on an accelerated schedule. They want the new model in place by 2024. In other words they need the money and don't want to leave it on the table for absolutely no reason.

This doesn't actually preclude further realignment because the playoff model can always be tweaked. The BCS model was tweaked when the Big East effectively disappeared so it's not as though a structure can't be altered to fit the circumstances.

I do agree we're not going to see a full breakaway in the the near term because contracts preclude it. You mentioned the basketball tournament and that's a good point. The value of college basketball for the FBS conferences can't be fully exploited until those contracts are resolved.

With that said, the FBS and not just the Power leagues appear to be aligned otherwise this playoff deal wouldn't have gotten done and they wouldn't be discussing moving football governance out from under the NCAA. That's no small detail. And sure, we can discuss the obvious disadvantages that the G5 have economically, but it doesn't appear to matter for now.

There may come a time when the Power leagues break away to form their own division or organization, but it doesn't appear to be in the works just yet. Nonetheless, the FBS leagues are laying the groundwork for doing just that...just on a wider scale than some of us had previously thought. For one, that explains the mad dash by some FCS schools to get into the FBS despite the obvious economic troubles in doing so. They're fighting for survival.

So in short, you make some good points, but I think your conclusion is too extreme given the whole breadth of circumstances.

A separation is coming and I wouldn't be shocked if it's 2026 that we see a new organization form as the CFP contract will have to be renewed for that year. The FBS conferences seem to be on the same page so they'll all be included. This new "CFP" body will run football for the whole current FBS. Other sports will eventually follow.

Great post

To the point of the OP, academia is by its very nature a very incrementalist industry. I’ve had to work with the entire range of organizations - from huge Fortune 100 corporations to small startups to defense contractors to medical centers to huge research universities to tiny liberal arts colleges.

The problem that I see with a lot of proposals from fans of college sports is applying what would be totally normal in a standard business context to academia. They’re simply not the same. Taking an Elon Musk/Jeff Bezos approach to simply smashing everything from before and starting from scratch isn’t ever going to be in the DNA of academia because so much of the brand value in academia is about the cultural and intellectual capital that they’ve accumulated over the past 100/150/200-plus years. People don’t go to Harvard because it’s particularly innovative in teaching, but rather the old money tradition and connections that only comes from many generations of power and influence.

Academia just can’t won’t turn and change business models on a dime like a Silicon Valley startup. That doesn’t mean that they won’t take part in fairly capitalistic business decisions like conference realignment or splitting off FBS football from the rest of the NCAA. However, I think a lot of people discount the small-p political side of academia on top of them being small-c conservative with respect to changes. Even when a school or conference is screwing a peer, they still don’t want to be *seen* as screwing that peer because academia is based on a lot of collaboration amongst each other while simultaneously being competitors. Higher education simply has unique industry dynamics where there are factors that push against total legal *structural* separation (which is much different than de facto financial separation, which colleges and conferences definitely do engage in fully).

(09-03-2022 09:56 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-03-2022 09:01 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-03-2022 08:51 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The Big 10 is pretty adamant that they want the Rose Bowl to be their permanent quarterfinal site. I’m curious if the Sugar Bowl and SEC will want a similar, or with 4 of the big NY6 bowls in their footprint, if they will want to put their champ in whichever bowl is closest to home.

The other question I see floating out there is if all of the NY6 bowls will be included. I can see the other 5 bowls just switching off between who’s a semi-final and who’s a quarterfinal but the Rose is always going to want to be on NYD and get the Big 10 champ they are among the top 4 champs.

Alternatively, you could simply cut out 2 (the Peach and the Cotton/Fiesta), make the remaining 4 permanent quarterfinal sites, and bid out a city to host both semis and the final. I kind of like this model because it would cut down on travel. 4 teams arrive in a given city. They play the semis, stay the week, then the winners play the finals. I like the idea of a MLK day double header for the semis and the final the following Monday.

For the outset, the CFP announcement specifies that the NCG is bid out, the Quarterfinals and Semi-finals at bowls on a rotating basis.

The Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl as permanent QF games on NYD and the four other bowls alternating between QF and SF is entirely compatible with the agreed points, but is just one alternative that the management committee will have available to them.

The release did note that this was also all “subject to reaching agreement with bowls”, so this piece would be all subject to negotiation.

The bowls may have contracts if enforced might prevent implementation in 2024 and 2025.

They have no contracts for 2026 and beyond. Los Angeles (SoFi), Las Vegas, Houston, Orlando, and Tampa could easily serve as quarterfinal "bowl" locations.

Be nice and you are likely to continue to be part of the CFP in the future. It might be that some of the six bowls do want to remain strictly a New Years quarterfinal bowl and that can be accommodated. Others might be OK being a semifinal game (with a more or less meaningless "bowl" designation). This might particularly be true of the Fiesta and Peach which have become more prestigious through their association with the CFP.