Not much actually changed about the situation yesterday. What changed was our knowledge about the situation.

1a. An exception to what I said about the situation not changing yesterday. The presidents’ decision marks a vital exchange of information. The Big Ten and SEC have now communicated that they are not going to align, promoting their joint interests at the expense of the rest of FBS, the middle-tier and/or the G5. For whatever reasons they may have, that’s not the path they’re going to take, so the middle-tier conferences don’t have to worry as much about that.
A breakaway isn’t coming soon--the next logical point for a breakaway would be 2032, when the NCAA Tournament contract expires.

The presidents show a revealed preference for continuity. They’re not trying to reinvent a wheel in hopes of building a better mousetrap. No bold visionary plans, no fundamental change. The presidents are in fact averse to fundamental change, and will resist it as long as possible.

From the CFP release:
1. They’re going with the 6+6 plan that was rolled out a year ago, after much spadework was done. (I’m personally skeptical of the quality of that spadework, but nobody’s asking me).
2. Keeping the committee.
5. Keeping the conference championship games. (Not a big upset, but some of us were thinking otherwise.)
6. They expect to keep the 6 New Years Six bowls in the system, rotating quarterfinals and semifinals.
8. Keeping conference tie-ins to historic bowls as much as possible.

What else did we learn yesterday?
3a. There is now universal basic agreement on the desirability of 6+6 with NYD quarterfinals, and no other plans are in discussion for the rest of this decade or so.
3b. There is no indication of an SEC - Big Ten “entente” (the term “alliance” is in bad odor), to cooperate to promote their shared interests. That shared interest being to radically rearrange the revenue allocation formula to favor the Tier One schools and conferences.
3c. Semi-speculative: If there is general agreement to keep what can be kept, and no SEC-Big Ten cooperation, then we should expect the revenue distribution formula to remain mostly as it is. SEC and Big Ten may push for more money allocated for performance, for playoff appearances (maybe for playoff wins?). But at the margins, not the sort of 25-25-10-10-10-15 split I would have pushed for in Sankey or Warren’s shoes.
3d. Counter-speculative: If there is no SEC-Big Ten “meeting of the minds” to squeeze the ACC, PAC and Big 12 within the current system (the new CFP looks to be an extension of the current CFP), logically there is much less basis to believe that the SEC and Big Ten are about to turn around and cooperate on radical changes to college football that don’t have to be made (even if a case can be made that the changes would be insanely profitable--birds in the hand are preferred to those in the bush)

Particular points.
4a. Big Ten gave up on automatic bids, which was never a position that made much sense for them
4b. SEC has conceded a Big Ten-Rose Bowl relationship. (Covers all of the contract bowls, but Big Ten - Rose is the only one that means jack squat.)
4c. Something I’d like to repeat--the SEC and Big Ten just agreed that, in the foreseeable future, 2 or 3 non-top 10 teams will be in the playoff as conference champs, and the first-out and second-out will usually be an SEC or Big Ten team.
4d. Another way to say that same point: Change happens very slowly in the world of college administrators. The 6+6 format was sketched out and the Gang of Four agreed in a P5 world, two years ago. We no longer live in that world, but The Powers That Be seem to.

I was surprised they specified the quarterfinals would be played with 4 bowls since I did not consider that to be settled. I was thinking there might have been more of a push to play the quarterfinals on campus or at least enough push to leave it unspecified.

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.

Two small points:

(09-03-2022 07:51 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  ... A breakaway isn’t coming soon--the next logical point for a breakaway would be 2032, when the NCAA Tournament contract expires.

I have long viewed this as the first logical point for a breakaway. The CFP money grabs an incremental increase in media value by (1) pulling some more media value from the second tier bowls and (2) by creating new media value. The fact that it creates new media value means there is less pressure to fight over the distribution.

The P5 already receives a lion's share of the media money from both regular season college football and from the CFP. And the last realignment moves of the SEC and Big Ten increased the share of the SEC and Big Ten within the P5 share. The 6+6 opens the door to the SEC and Big Ten getting a larger share of a larger amount of CFP money.

And trying to push through any dramatic structural change in the underlying structure of college football risks reducing the amount of money available from CFP expansion in the short and medium term, irrespective of the increase in money it promises over the longer term.

It is a much safer play to expand the CFP now, get that system entrenched, then re-organize the control to give the SEC and Big Ten the clout within the CFP that recognizes their real world position, and then leverage the CFP structure into being the framework for the breakaway College Basketball Championship.

Quote: ...
3b. There is no indication of an SEC - Big Ten “entente” (the term “alliance” is in bad odor), to cooperate to promote their shared interests. ...

Particular points.
4a. Big Ten gave up on automatic bids, which was never a position that made much sense for them
4b. SEC has conceded a Big Ten-Rose Bowl relationship. (Covers all of the contract bowls, but Big Ten - Rose is the only one that means jack squat.).
4c. Something I’d like to repeat--the SEC and Big Ten just agreed that, in the foreseeable future, 2 or 3 non-top 10 teams will be in the playoff as conference champs, and the first-out and second-out will usually be an SEC or Big Ten team.
...

There is a claim of no evidence of an SEC - Big Ten Entente to promote their shared interests, and then evidence is cited of specific points that indicate an SEC - Big Ten entente to promote their shared interests.

The SEC interest in automatic bids is in part a direct conference advantage ... the SEC is the only conference with its champion in every year of the top four at-large CFP, so every other conference media value, especially CCG, suffers a relative disadvantage due to the perceived (because real) higher risk of it not putting the winner directly into the quarterfinals. It is also in part an indirect advantage: no structure other than FBS conference champion in the conference champion 6 is consistent with no structure other than ranking to the at-large 6, which is the path to the maximum number of SEC at-large bids, and the path to guaranteeing the most direct path to the SEC #2 school.

The Big Ten has some countervailing interest, but pragmatically they are not as strong as the SEC's interest, since much of the relative advantage of the SEC over the rest of the P5 actually flows down to the Middle Three.

The Big Ten interest in the Rose Bowl and in restoring some of the luster to the Rose Bowl affiliation also has a direct component, in pointing toward maintaining and possibly increasing guaranteed conference revenue through CFP QF Bowl relationships. The interest has only increased of late, as the Rose Bowl will shortly be a Big Ten Home Game. The SEC has a countervailing interest in substantially increasing conference revenue received through participation payments. But it's a more marginal interest for the SEC, since the Sugar Bowl will continue to offer the opportunity to have the guaranteed bowl contract money, just not with the expected over-all SEC advantage to be expected from the participation money.

And they just did a settled the points for mutual advantage, conceding on the less important point for either side, to gain the more important point for either side.

And while the 6+6 offers a lifeline to the rest of the P5, it also will accelerate their evolution under the 6+6 into the M3 or M2 in a three tier FBS system, S2/M[2|3]/Go[5|6]. That is part of why it is in the mutual interest of the SEC and Big Ten to get the 6+6 started sooner rather than later, if at all possible.

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.

(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.

(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.

(09-03-2022 08:39 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Two small points:

(09-03-2022 07:51 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  ... A breakaway isn’t coming soon--the next logical point for a breakaway would be 2032, when the NCAA Tournament contract expires.

I have long viewed this as the first logical point for a breakaway. The CFP money grabs an incremental increase in media value by (1) pulling some more media value from the second tier bowls and (2) by creating new media value. The fact that it creates new media value means there is less pressure to fight over the distribution.

The P5 already receives a lion's share of the media money from both regular season college football and from the CFP. And the last realignment moves of the SEC and Big Ten increased the share of the SEC and Big Ten within the P5 share. The 6+6 opens the door to the SEC and Big Ten getting a larger share of a larger amount of CFP money.

But the path was open for the Big Ten and SEC to demand a structure that gave them a MUCH bigger slice of the pie. The implication of yesterday's statement is "the current structure, with additions and tweaks". Which means a baseline of P5 equality. P5 equality is no longer the reality on the ground, but the SEC and Big Ten aren't pressing that advantage.

Quote:And trying to push through any dramatic structural change in the underlying structure of college football risks reducing the amount of money available from CFP expansion in the short and medium term, irrespective of the increase in money it promises over the longer term.

Right. They're not interested in bold moves with pretty much any degree of risk, no matter what the probable upside is.

Quote:It is a much safer play to expand the CFP now, get that system entrenched, then re-organize the control to give the SEC and Big Ten the clout within the CFP that recognizes their real world position,

....we're overcomplicating and overthinking again. We're looking at the CFP for the medium term future, an extension of the current CFP structure. Nothing is going to change for the duration of the contract--the status quo stays, at least on paper, until around 2030 if it's a 6 year deal.

Quote:and then leverage the CFP structure into being the framework for the breakaway College Basketball Championship.

CFP structure is definitely the testing ground for The Powers That Be to take control of the College Basketball Championship Tournament from the NCAA.

Quote: ...
3b. There is no indication of an SEC - Big Ten “entente” (the term “alliance” is in bad odor), to cooperate to promote their shared interests. ...

Particular points.
4a. Big Ten gave up on automatic bids, which was never a position that made much sense for them
4b. SEC has conceded a Big Ten-Rose Bowl relationship. (Covers all of the contract bowls, but Big Ten - Rose is the only one that means jack squat.).
4c. Something I’d like to repeat--the SEC and Big Ten just agreed that, in the foreseeable future, 2 or 3 non-top 10 teams will be in the playoff as conference champs, and the first-out and second-out will usually be an SEC or Big Ten team.
...

There is a claim of no evidence of an SEC - Big Ten Entente to promote their shared interests, and then evidence is cited of specific points that indicate an SEC - Big Ten entente to promote their shared interests.[/quote]

I will be more specific, and hopefully clearer.

An alliance (or an "entente", an implied alliance without commitments on paper,
settling outstanding differences to cooperate against a greater common threat) is almost always directed at a particular target. NATO is designed to deter and defend against Russia. The Isrealis and Saudis have established an "entente" because of their shared Iranian worries.

What we have between the SEC and Big Ten is a "detente", a situation where two opposed superpowers make mutual concessions to reduce tensions. The target is not a third party (ESPN, the PAC/XII/ACC, the NCAA), but the sheer threat of conflict.

The SEC conceded on the points not important to them, as did the Big Ten, in the interests of avoiding a nuclear conflict that would leave the entire world devastated (no college football playoff agreement at all in 2026.)

Quote:And they just did a settled the points for mutual advantage, conceding on the less important point for either side, to gain the more important point for either side.

More similar to great power politics in teh second half of the Cold War. Detente, not entente or alliance.

Quote:And while the 6+6 offers a lifeline to the rest of the P5, it also will accelerate their evolution under the 6+6 into the M3 or M2 in a three tier FBS system, S2/M[2|3]/Go[5|6].

I'm not sure that's clear at all. The Tiers, if you want to call it that, already exist, defined by TV money and access to OTA and maybe ESPN game windows on Saturday. The results (who gets in, not necessarily who wins the games) will show that in a 6+6 system, but they'd show that in most any system.

Quote:That is part of why it is in the mutual interest of the SEC and Big Ten to get the 6+6 started sooner rather than later, if at all possible.

I think their mutual interest was in getting an expanded playoff started, an interest they share with everybody in FBS. 6+6 is less important than just "more than four, with plenty of at-larges"

(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.

This is a logical assumption, but I don't think the Big Ten or anyone in Big Ten Country has said anything specific about the Rose Bowl since the SoCal expansion, except for statements about respecting existing partners and existing contracts. "Existing contracts" all go away in 2026.

(09-03-2022 07:51 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Not much actually changed about the situation yesterday. What changed was our knowledge about the situation.

1a. An exception to what I said about the situation not changing yesterday. The presidents’ decision marks a vital exchange of information. The Big Ten and SEC have now communicated that they are not going to align, promoting their joint interests at the expense of the rest of FBS, the middle-tier and/or the G5. For whatever reasons they may have, that’s not the path they’re going to take, so the middle-tier conferences don’t have to worry as much about that.
A breakaway isn’t coming soon--the next logical point for a breakaway would be 2032, when the NCAA Tournament contract expires.

The presidents show a revealed preference for continuity. They’re not trying to reinvent a wheel in hopes of building a better mousetrap. No bold visionary plans, no fundamental change. The presidents are in fact averse to fundamental change, and will resist it as long as possible.

From the CFP release:
1. They’re going with the 6+6 plan that was rolled out a year ago, after much spadework was done. (I’m personally skeptical of the quality of that spadework, but nobody’s asking me).
2. Keeping the committee.
5. Keeping the conference championship games. (Not a big upset, but some of us were thinking otherwise.)
6. They expect to keep the 6 New Years Six bowls in the system, rotating quarterfinals and semifinals.
8. Keeping conference tie-ins to historic bowls as much as possible.

What else did we learn yesterday?
3a. There is now universal basic agreement on the desirability of 6+6 with NYD quarterfinals, and no other plans are in discussion for the rest of this decade or so.
3b. There is no indication of an SEC - Big Ten “entente” (the term “alliance” is in bad odor), to cooperate to promote their shared interests. That shared interest being to radically rearrange the revenue allocation formula to favor the Tier One schools and conferences.
3c. Semi-speculative: If there is general agreement to keep what can be kept, and no SEC-Big Ten cooperation, then we should expect the revenue distribution formula to remain mostly as it is. SEC and Big Ten may push for more money allocated for performance, for playoff appearances (maybe for playoff wins?). But at the margins, not the sort of 25-25-10-10-10-15 split I would have pushed for in Sankey or Warren’s shoes.
3d. Counter-speculative: If there is no SEC-Big Ten “meeting of the minds” to squeeze the ACC, PAC and Big 12 within the current system (the new CFP looks to be an extension of the current CFP), logically there is much less basis to believe that the SEC and Big Ten are about to turn around and cooperate on radical changes to college football that don’t have to be made (even if a case can be made that the changes would be insanely profitable--birds in the hand are preferred to those in the bush)

Particular points.
4a. Big Ten gave up on automatic bids, which was never a position that made much sense for them
4b. SEC has conceded a Big Ten-Rose Bowl relationship. (Covers all of the contract bowls, but Big Ten - Rose is the only one that means jack squat.)
4c. Something I’d like to repeat--the SEC and Big Ten just agreed that, in the foreseeable future, 2 or 3 non-top 10 teams will be in the playoff as conference champs, and the first-out and second-out will usually be an SEC or Big Ten team.
4d. Another way to say that same point: Change happens very slowly in the world of college administrators. The 6+6 format was sketched out and the Gang of Four agreed in a P5 world, two years ago. We no longer live in that world, but The Powers That Be seem to.

One change I expect is the conference shares will take into account conference size. CFP Distributions will be based on a per team basis.

(09-03-2022 10:08 AM)johnbragg 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.

This is a logical assumption, but I don't think the Big Ten or anyone in Big Ten Country has said anything specific about the Rose Bowl since the SoCal expansion, except for statements about respecting existing partners and existing contracts. "Existing contracts" all go away in 2026.

Yes, AFAIR, reporting about what the Big Ten wants regarding the Rose Bowl has been more "source within the Big Ten" and "sources within the Big Ten" than official Big Ten announcements.

However, the CFP vote did direct the management committee to work toward a pre-2026 launch if they can, and the Rose Bowl has publicly said it wants a permanent NYD QF. So that approach seems like it will at least be taken up as an option by the management committee.

Of course, once the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl are in place as NYD Quarterfinals in the pre-2026 negotiations, even if the pre-2026 negotiating hang on some intractable point, that puts them on the inside track to holding that position.

________________

(09-03-2022 10:28 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One change I expect is the conference shares will take into account conference size. CFP Distributions will be based on a per team basis.

The precedent for that within the CFP system itself, the per-team distribution as part of the Go5 pool, had a cap on the per-team distribution, originally set at 12 and then lowered to 10.

I would not be surprised if a similar cap on per-team distribution was place somewhere in the 12-16 range.

__________________

(09-03-2022 10:06 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  ... What we have between the SEC and Big Ten is a "detente", a situation where two opposed superpowers make mutual concessions to reduce tensions. The target is not a third party (ESPN, the PAC/XII/ACC, the NCAA), but the sheer threat of conflict. ...

Possibly, but if the SEC and Big Ten coming to an agreement, in an effort to take more money from the media networks than they are presently, is not definitive evidence of an entente, it is certainly entirely compatible with it.

The level of strategic agreement may become clearer when we see whether the effort to push it through in advance of 2026 succeeds. That will take closer coordination to pull off than implementing a 6+6 playoff starting in 2026.

(09-03-2022 10:28 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-03-2022 07:51 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Not much actually changed about the situation yesterday. What changed was our knowledge about the situation.

1a. An exception to what I said about the situation not changing yesterday. The presidents’ decision marks a vital exchange of information. The Big Ten and SEC have now communicated that they are not going to align, promoting their joint interests at the expense of the rest of FBS, the middle-tier and/or the G5. For whatever reasons they may have, that’s not the path they’re going to take, so the middle-tier conferences don’t have to worry as much about that.
A breakaway isn’t coming soon--the next logical point for a breakaway would be 2032, when the NCAA Tournament contract expires.

The presidents show a revealed preference for continuity. They’re not trying to reinvent a wheel in hopes of building a better mousetrap. No bold visionary plans, no fundamental change. The presidents are in fact averse to fundamental change, and will resist it as long as possible.

From the CFP release:
1. They’re going with the 6+6 plan that was rolled out a year ago, after much spadework was done. (I’m personally skeptical of the quality of that spadework, but nobody’s asking me).
2. Keeping the committee.
5. Keeping the conference championship games. (Not a big upset, but some of us were thinking otherwise.)
6. They expect to keep the 6 New Years Six bowls in the system, rotating quarterfinals and semifinals.
8. Keeping conference tie-ins to historic bowls as much as possible.

What else did we learn yesterday?
3a. There is now universal basic agreement on the desirability of 6+6 with NYD quarterfinals, and no other plans are in discussion for the rest of this decade or so.
3b. There is no indication of an SEC - Big Ten “entente” (the term “alliance” is in bad odor), to cooperate to promote their shared interests. That shared interest being to radically rearrange the revenue allocation formula to favor the Tier One schools and conferences.
3c. Semi-speculative: If there is general agreement to keep what can be kept, and no SEC-Big Ten cooperation, then we should expect the revenue distribution formula to remain mostly as it is. SEC and Big Ten may push for more money allocated for performance, for playoff appearances (maybe for playoff wins?). But at the margins, not the sort of 25-25-10-10-10-15 split I would have pushed for in Sankey or Warren’s shoes.
3d. Counter-speculative: If there is no SEC-Big Ten “meeting of the minds” to squeeze the ACC, PAC and Big 12 within the current system (the new CFP looks to be an extension of the current CFP), logically there is much less basis to believe that the SEC and Big Ten are about to turn around and cooperate on radical changes to college football that don’t have to be made (even if a case can be made that the changes would be insanely profitable--birds in the hand are preferred to those in the bush)

Particular points.
4a. Big Ten gave up on automatic bids, which was never a position that made much sense for them
4b. SEC has conceded a Big Ten-Rose Bowl relationship. (Covers all of the contract bowls, but Big Ten - Rose is the only one that means jack squat.)
4c. Something I’d like to repeat--the SEC and Big Ten just agreed that, in the foreseeable future, 2 or 3 non-top 10 teams will be in the playoff as conference champs, and the first-out and second-out will usually be an SEC or Big Ten team.
4d. Another way to say that same point: Change happens very slowly in the world of college administrators. The 6+6 format was sketched out and the Gang of Four agreed in a P5 world, two years ago. We no longer live in that world, but The Powers That Be seem to.

One change I expect is the conference shares will take into account conference size. CFP Distributions will be based on a per team basis.

I don't agree. The Big 10 and SEC have accepted that the Big 12 and PAC and ACC will get equal base shares (mostly ). They don't care that the ACc splits 14 ways and the PaC splits 10 ways.

SEC and Big Ten will want to increase the share or the pie you get for putting a team in the NY6 / in the playoff. They'll get their $$$ that way.

Edit:. Minor point:. The SEC and Big Ten have agreed to one G5 spot. If you incentivuze expansion, and the Big 12 guts the PAC (with or without Big 10 expansion), then you get two G5-tier champs in the playoff.

(09-03-2022 08:03 AM)goofus Wrote:  I was surprised they specified the quarterfinals would be played with 4 bowls since I did not consider that to be settled. I was thinking there might have been more of a push to play the quarterfinals on campus or at least enough push to leave it unspecified.

NY6 wasn't working. The non-playoff bowls other than the Rose were sinking in viewership.

(09-03-2022 10:46 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  ... SEC and Big Ten will want to increase the share or the pie you get for putting a team in the NY6 / in the playoff. They'll get their $$$ that way

At present, they get guaranteed unequal cuts via the Bowl Contracts ... even though those Bowl Contracts are for the schools placed in bowls when they are NOT in the CFP.

However, to integrate the Bowls into the QF/SF in a structure that is compatible with being launched pre-2026, a natural approach is to allow the conferences to specify which bowl their top-4 champion will play in as the "host", and then the bowls pay an affiliation fee to the conference (or conferences) that agree to commit to that bowl. The first part is what gives the conference something to sell within the CFP tournament that enables the second part.

And then a Bowl participation payment to the schools that are playing in the QF ensures the conferences with the top four conference champions get one participation fee, and more if they have a school that wins through to the quarterfinal from the first round.

Then a CFP appearance fee can be provided that is like the NCAA unit, but with the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl in a position to pay higher affiliation fees and bowl payouts and the number of SEC and Big Ten schools likely to appear in the QF, the overall earnings per appearance is higher for the SEC and Big Ten, on top of the number of appearances being higher.

(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.

Institutionally, there are only 3 remaining FCS schools that make any sense as FBS. I'm not talking fan support and facilities, just the school itself-size, size of state, number of other programs in state. Those 3 are UC-Davis, Missouri St. and Illinois St.

Any of the other names either don't make any sense at all (Eastern Kentucky), are in small states and we really don't need more Wyomings (North Dakota St., South Dakota St., North Dakota, Montana, Montana St., Delaware, New Hampshire) or are commuter schools (Sacramento St., Kennesaw St.).

(09-03-2022 10:46 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-03-2022 10:28 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-03-2022 07:51 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Not much actually changed about the situation yesterday. What changed was our knowledge about the situation.

1a. An exception to what I said about the situation not changing yesterday. The presidents’ decision marks a vital exchange of information. The Big Ten and SEC have now communicated that they are not going to align, promoting their joint interests at the expense of the rest of FBS, the middle-tier and/or the G5. For whatever reasons they may have, that’s not the path they’re going to take, so the middle-tier conferences don’t have to worry as much about that.
A breakaway isn’t coming soon--the next logical point for a breakaway would be 2032, when the NCAA Tournament contract expires.

The presidents show a revealed preference for continuity. They’re not trying to reinvent a wheel in hopes of building a better mousetrap. No bold visionary plans, no fundamental change. The presidents are in fact averse to fundamental change, and will resist it as long as possible.

From the CFP release:
1. They’re going with the 6+6 plan that was rolled out a year ago, after much spadework was done. (I’m personally skeptical of the quality of that spadework, but nobody’s asking me).
2. Keeping the committee.
5. Keeping the conference championship games. (Not a big upset, but some of us were thinking otherwise.)
6. They expect to keep the 6 New Years Six bowls in the system, rotating quarterfinals and semifinals.
8. Keeping conference tie-ins to historic bowls as much as possible.

What else did we learn yesterday?
3a. There is now universal basic agreement on the desirability of 6+6 with NYD quarterfinals, and no other plans are in discussion for the rest of this decade or so.
3b. There is no indication of an SEC - Big Ten “entente” (the term “alliance” is in bad odor), to cooperate to promote their shared interests. That shared interest being to radically rearrange the revenue allocation formula to favor the Tier One schools and conferences.
3c. Semi-speculative: If there is general agreement to keep what can be kept, and no SEC-Big Ten cooperation, then we should expect the revenue distribution formula to remain mostly as it is. SEC and Big Ten may push for more money allocated for performance, for playoff appearances (maybe for playoff wins?). But at the margins, not the sort of 25-25-10-10-10-15 split I would have pushed for in Sankey or Warren’s shoes.
3d. Counter-speculative: If there is no SEC-Big Ten “meeting of the minds” to squeeze the ACC, PAC and Big 12 within the current system (the new CFP looks to be an extension of the current CFP), logically there is much less basis to believe that the SEC and Big Ten are about to turn around and cooperate on radical changes to college football that don’t have to be made (even if a case can be made that the changes would be insanely profitable--birds in the hand are preferred to those in the bush)

Particular points.
4a. Big Ten gave up on automatic bids, which was never a position that made much sense for them
4b. SEC has conceded a Big Ten-Rose Bowl relationship. (Covers all of the contract bowls, but Big Ten - Rose is the only one that means jack squat.)
4c. Something I’d like to repeat--the SEC and Big Ten just agreed that, in the foreseeable future, 2 or 3 non-top 10 teams will be in the playoff as conference champs, and the first-out and second-out will usually be an SEC or Big Ten team.
4d. Another way to say that same point: Change happens very slowly in the world of college administrators. The 6+6 format was sketched out and the Gang of Four agreed in a P5 world, two years ago. We no longer live in that world, but The Powers That Be seem to.

One change I expect is the conference shares will take into account conference size. CFP Distributions will be based on a per team basis.

I don't agree. The Big 10 and SEC have accepted that the Big 12 and PAC and ACC will get equal base shares (mostly ). They don't care that the ACc splits 14 ways and the PaC splits 10 ways.

SEC and Big Ten will want to increase the share or the pie you get for putting a team in the NY6 / in the playoff. They'll get their $$$ that way.

Edit:. Minor point:. The SEC and Big Ten have agreed to one G5 spot. If you incentivuze expansion, and the Big 12 guts the PAC (with or without Big 10 expansion), then you get two G5-tier champs in the playoff.

I think size absolutely is taken into account. There's a big difference between 16 and 10. Before, they expected it to only vary from 12 to 14.

I don't think it is going to stay at 12 forever. I expect over time that the field will expand to 16, then 24, and then ultimately 32 with every conference champ in.

(09-03-2022 11:30 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  I don't think it is going to stay at 12 forever. I expect over time that the field will expand to 16, then 24, and then ultimately 32 with every conference champ in.

Why not 128 then?
This isn't basketball you can't have #1 vs #32, it'll be a 70 point victory. We've already had blowouts in top 4 CFP, you're asking for a 10,000 person viewership.

(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.

If the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl alternates between QF and SF, I think it’s enitrely possible for the other NYD bowls to attempt to have contractual relationship with the SEC/BIG so that they can host the SEC/BIG on QF for the years when Rose and Sugar hold SF games.

(09-03-2022 12:11 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  If the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl alternates between QF and SF, I think it’s enitrely possible for the other NYD bowls to attempt to have contractual relationship with the SEC/BIG so that they can host the SEC/BIG on QF for the years when Rose and Sugar hold SF games.

Certainly. That is one of the reasons the Rose Bowl would push for (under a 2026 launch), or insist on (under a pre-2026 launch), a permanent NYD QF spot.

There is not the same brand equity among SEC fans for the Sugar Bowl, but the Rose Bowl grabbing a permanent QF spot opens up a spot for one of the other five to do the same and the other four to alternate between QF and SF status. Sugar Bowl seems like the bowl committee with the strongest ability to grab the other permanent QF bowl in that system, and is the one with the existing SEC contract as further leverage.