https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...adline-cfp

Again, nothing in there about the Big Ten/Pac 12 being on the Rose Bowl's side...

To me, the biggest piece of news here is that the expansion for 2024 and 2025 is NOT tied in to 2026 and beyond.

A source said the CFP has assured the Rose Bowl it will do everything it can to work around the Jan. 1 2 p.m. PT slot, but has asked all of the bowls to take a leap of faith because the commissioners can't be bound to promises that will or won't impact the value as they're trying to negotiate the next deal.

"I don't want it to just come down to the Rose Bowl as the reason we don't start it early, I really don't, but it may be," a CFP source said. "We said this from Day 1 -- there may be any number of reasons we can't. We're really down to one remaining issue."

24' and 25' can be worked out relatively quickly with Thursday and Friday night SFs on WC Weekend, with RB and Sugar hosting QFs NYD. The issue is the subsequent cycle. It's clear the RB wants a double host, because giving up that exclusive window is a lose lose for them. I think they want a QF every year and an additional SF, maybe 1/3 years. Interchangeable with a NCG.

I wouldn't give up the window if I were the RB. The CFP can schedule a H2H game, but I wouldn't give up the window. Just play a #15 vs #18 matchup hook or crook, because that's what the RB intends to do if it's not given a QF or a year for double hosting.

IMO, nobody should be asking for assurances in the 2026 and beyond deal. Everything being negotiated right now should be about 2024 and 2025 only.

If the RB is worried about precedent being set, it should ask for, and receive, a written assurance that nothing agreed to for 2024/2025 will be regarded as the "status quo" or precedent for 2026.

If we read between the lines, it is CLEAR. The RB does not intend to be a QF every year going forward. It's not good enough. They want a more lucrative game.

My question is, why is an extra game relevant to the actual RB on NYD? They can't move the calendar back a week select years to accommodate the RB as a SF/NYD game and then move the calendar forward the rest of the years.

Why is a post NYD SF connected to the RB at all??? Who benefits from that besides the local Pasadena stakeholders and sponsors based there?

(11-29-2022 01:35 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  Again, nothing in there about the Big Ten/Pac 12 being on the Rose Bowl's side...

"But it's the Rose Bowl. The Granddaddy of Them All. The Tournament of Roses parade in the morning. The football game in the afternoon. The sun setting on the San Gabriel Mountains."

"We're aware of that, Mrs. Farber. We're well aware of your Rose Bowl committee's request for future guarantees. But the contract for 2026 and beyond is going to be about generating the most possible revenue for the schools. That will take precedence over everything, including tradition and relationships. We really can't be any more clear about it."

(pause) "But, but, but ... what about the sunset and the mountains?"

(11-29-2022 02:00 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  If we read between the lines, it is CLEAR. The RB does not intend to be a QF every year going forward. It's not good enough. They want a more lucrative game.

My question is, why is an extra game relevant to the actual RB on NYD? They can't move the calendar back a week select years to accommodate the RB as a SF/NYD game and then move the calendar forward the rest of the years.

Why is a post NYD SF connected to the RB at all??? Who benefits from that besides the local Pasadena stakeholders and sponsors based there?

This goes to my point all along: this isn't just the Rose Bowl talking, but rather it's about the Big Ten and Pac-12.

I guess it should have been obvious to me, but as I've been thinking more about this today, there's a reason why every single Rose Bowl proposal continues to include a non-playoff consolation game: the Big Ten and Pac-12 aren't going to do the "dirty work" for the Rose Bowl behind the scenes and then just give the game up completely to the CFP.

The Big Ten and Pac-12 aren't altruists here (and to be sure, NO ONE is altruistic in this process): they still need to "own" the Rose Bowl for themselves at some level, even if it's only 1/3rd of the time going forward. That's why I believe that the consolation game keeps getting inserted into all of these proposals as opposed to anything that would make the Rose Bowl into a permanent quarterfinal (or even semifinal post-2026).

The Rose Bowl may actually be totally cool with being a permanent quarterfinal if it means that they keep their NYD time slot, but then they don't get the support of the Big Ten and Pac-12... and they NEED the support of those two leagues to get anything done.

(11-29-2022 01:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, nobody should be asking for assurances in the 2026 and beyond deal. Everything being negotiated right now should be about 2024 and 2025 only.

If the RB is worried about precedent being set, it should ask for, and receive, a written assurance that nothing agreed to for 2024/2025 will be regarded as the "status quo" or precedent for 2026.

The parties to the contract seem to agree with you.

But I do not. "You want me to do something that benefits you much more than me today, then I require assurances for tomorrow" seems to me the way of the world.

(11-29-2022 02:00 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  If we read between the lines, it is CLEAR. The RB does not intend to be a QF every year going forward. It's not good enough. They want a more lucrative game.

Be interesting to see if the quarterfinal games are played on campus beginning in 2026.

The AD's at Florida and Oklahoma — and there may well be others — have expressed interest in letting schools host QF's in addition to the first-round games. Would be another way to reward those that finished in the Top 4 in the CFP rankings.

Lot of ancillary benefit$ for universities and athletic departments that get to host playoff games

This quote has been the best part of all of this bickering.

When the 10 FBS commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick negotiate the next TV deal, they are unanimous in their desire to have multiple TV partners.

(11-29-2022 02:36 PM)cubucks Wrote:  This quote has been the best part of all of this bickering.

When the 10 FBS commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick negotiate the next TV deal, they are unanimous in their desire to have multiple TV partners.

This ought to be obvious. Having everything on one network (whether it's ESPN, Fox or whoever else) is almost always going to yield less revenue than having multiple networks. Just look at the Big Ten and SEC media deals even with the SEC garnering higher overall TV ratings. Even the SEC (with its relationship with ESPN) isn't turning down more money if Fox drives up the CFP price.

(11-29-2022 02:21 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 02:00 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  If we read between the lines, it is CLEAR. The RB does not intend to be a QF every year going forward. It's not good enough. They want a more lucrative game.

My question is, why is an extra game relevant to the actual RB on NYD? They can't move the calendar back a week select years to accommodate the RB as a SF/NYD game and then move the calendar forward the rest of the years.

Why is a post NYD SF connected to the RB at all??? Who benefits from that besides the local Pasadena stakeholders and sponsors based there?

This goes to my point all along: this isn't just the Rose Bowl talking, but rather it's about the Big Ten and Pac-12.

I guess it should have been obvious to me, but as I've been thinking more about this today, there's a reason why every single Rose Bowl proposal continues to include a non-playoff consolation game: the Big Ten and Pac-12 aren't going to do the "dirty work" for the Rose Bowl behind the scenes and then just give the game up completely to the CFP.

The Big Ten and Pac-12 aren't altruists here (and to be sure, NO ONE is altruistic in this process): they still need to "own" the Rose Bowl for themselves at some level, even if it's only 1/3rd of the time going forward. That's why I believe that the consolation game keeps getting inserted into all of these proposals as opposed to anything that would make the Rose Bowl into a permanent quarterfinal (or even semifinal post-2026).

The Rose Bowl may actually be totally cool with being a permanent quarterfinal if it means that they keep their NYD time slot, but then they don't get the support of the Big Ten and Pac-12... and they NEED the support of those two leagues to get anything done.

Kevin Warren is one of the two most powerful people in college football right now. In fact, this summer it seemed like he sort of relished that position after looking weak for the last two years with his Covid response and being caught off guard by Texas/OU to the SEC. He had no problem leading an "alliance" that stopped CFP expansion last year (which was clearly not in anyone's best interest but was a pure power move) and he had no problem swiftly taking the LA schools from his partner league. He needs no one to do his dirty work. If the Big Ten was dug in on this, they'd be out in front of it.

(11-29-2022 02:41 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 02:36 PM)cubucks Wrote:  This quote has been the best part of all of this bickering.

When the 10 FBS commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick negotiate the next TV deal, they are unanimous in their desire to have multiple TV partners.

This ought to be obvious. Having everything on one network (whether it's ESPN, Fox or whoever else) is almost always going to yield less revenue than having multiple networks. Just look at the Big Ten and SEC media deals even with the SEC garnering higher overall TV ratings. Even the SEC (with its relationship with ESPN) isn't turning down more money if Fox drives up the CFP price.

I'm more amazed that they were unanimous in a decision, lol!

(11-29-2022 02:21 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 02:00 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  If we read between the lines, it is CLEAR. The RB does not intend to be a QF every year going forward. It's not good enough. They want a more lucrative game.

My question is, why is an extra game relevant to the actual RB on NYD? They can't move the calendar back a week select years to accommodate the RB as a SF/NYD game and then move the calendar forward the rest of the years.

Why is a post NYD SF connected to the RB at all??? Who benefits from that besides the local Pasadena stakeholders and sponsors based there?

This goes to my point all along: this isn't just the Rose Bowl talking, but rather it's about the Big Ten and Pac-12.

I guess it should have been obvious to me, but as I've been thinking more about this today, there's a reason why every single Rose Bowl proposal continues to include a non-playoff consolation game: the Big Ten and Pac-12 aren't going to do the "dirty work" for the Rose Bowl behind the scenes and then just give the game up completely to the CFP.

The Big Ten and Pac-12 aren't altruists here (and to be sure, NO ONE is altruistic in this process): they still need to "own" the Rose Bowl for themselves at some level, even if it's only 1/3rd of the time going forward. That's why I believe that the consolation game keeps getting inserted into all of these proposals as opposed to anything that would make the Rose Bowl into a permanent quarterfinal (or even semifinal post-2026).

The Rose Bowl may actually be totally cool with being a permanent quarterfinal if it means that they keep their NYD time slot, but then they don't get the support of the Big Ten and Pac-12... and they NEED the support of those two leagues to get anything done.

How crazy would it be if the Rose decides that their best move is to get a permanent QF game on NYD on their preferred time slot, every year guaranteed for the next CFP contract...but the B1G and Pac don't support that, then the other 9 conferences do?

I'm not predicting this, but it's actually possible now to consider a schism between the RB and the B1G. Their best way to ensure long-term relevance is the same slot, and probably same spot in the playoff system, every year forever. And if that means more Alabama or Georgia and less tOSU and USC...I'd bet they can live with that.

(11-29-2022 02:29 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 02:00 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  If we read between the lines, it is CLEAR. The RB does not intend to be a QF every year going forward. It's not good enough. They want a more lucrative game.

Be interesting to see if the quarterfinal games are played on campus beginning in 2026.

The AD's at Florida and Oklahoma — and there may well be others — have expressed interest in letting schools host QF's in addition to the first-round games. Would be another way to reward those that finished in the Top 4 in the CFP rankings.

Lot of ancillary benefit$ for universities and athletic departments that get to host playoff games

1st round games should be hosted by the schools, but the QF games are going to National Events... no reason you couldn't just have the 6 major bowls hosts those on a rotating basis. And AD's aren't making these decisions.

(11-29-2022 02:43 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 02:21 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 02:00 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  If we read between the lines, it is CLEAR. The RB does not intend to be a QF every year going forward. It's not good enough. They want a more lucrative game.

My question is, why is an extra game relevant to the actual RB on NYD? They can't move the calendar back a week select years to accommodate the RB as a SF/NYD game and then move the calendar forward the rest of the years.

Why is a post NYD SF connected to the RB at all??? Who benefits from that besides the local Pasadena stakeholders and sponsors based there?

This goes to my point all along: this isn't just the Rose Bowl talking, but rather it's about the Big Ten and Pac-12.

I guess it should have been obvious to me, but as I've been thinking more about this today, there's a reason why every single Rose Bowl proposal continues to include a non-playoff consolation game: the Big Ten and Pac-12 aren't going to do the "dirty work" for the Rose Bowl behind the scenes and then just give the game up completely to the CFP.

The Big Ten and Pac-12 aren't altruists here (and to be sure, NO ONE is altruistic in this process): they still need to "own" the Rose Bowl for themselves at some level, even if it's only 1/3rd of the time going forward. That's why I believe that the consolation game keeps getting inserted into all of these proposals as opposed to anything that would make the Rose Bowl into a permanent quarterfinal (or even semifinal post-2026).

The Rose Bowl may actually be totally cool with being a permanent quarterfinal if it means that they keep their NYD time slot, but then they don't get the support of the Big Ten and Pac-12... and they NEED the support of those two leagues to get anything done.

Kevin Warren is one of the two most powerful people in college football right now. In fact, this summer it seemed like he sort of relished that position after looking weak for the last two years with his Covid response and being caught off guard by Texas/OU to the SEC. He had no problem leading an "alliance" that stopped CFP expansion last year (which was clearly not in anyone's best interest but was a pure power move) and he had no problem swiftly taking the LA schools from his partner league. He needs no one to do his dirty work. If the Big Ten was dug in on this, they'd be out in front of it.

Kevin Warren actually doesn't talk very much at all through the press. He had several interviews surrounding the USC/UCLA expansion and new TV deals, but otherwise is a pretty behind-the-scenes person. Warren doesn't do nearly as many interviews as his predecessor of Jim Delany did or SEC commissioner Greg Sankey currently does.

(11-29-2022 03:03 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 02:43 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 02:21 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 02:00 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  If we read between the lines, it is CLEAR. The RB does not intend to be a QF every year going forward. It's not good enough. They want a more lucrative game.

My question is, why is an extra game relevant to the actual RB on NYD? They can't move the calendar back a week select years to accommodate the RB as a SF/NYD game and then move the calendar forward the rest of the years.

Why is a post NYD SF connected to the RB at all??? Who benefits from that besides the local Pasadena stakeholders and sponsors based there?

This goes to my point all along: this isn't just the Rose Bowl talking, but rather it's about the Big Ten and Pac-12.

I guess it should have been obvious to me, but as I've been thinking more about this today, there's a reason why every single Rose Bowl proposal continues to include a non-playoff consolation game: the Big Ten and Pac-12 aren't going to do the "dirty work" for the Rose Bowl behind the scenes and then just give the game up completely to the CFP.

The Big Ten and Pac-12 aren't altruists here (and to be sure, NO ONE is altruistic in this process): they still need to "own" the Rose Bowl for themselves at some level, even if it's only 1/3rd of the time going forward. That's why I believe that the consolation game keeps getting inserted into all of these proposals as opposed to anything that would make the Rose Bowl into a permanent quarterfinal (or even semifinal post-2026).

The Rose Bowl may actually be totally cool with being a permanent quarterfinal if it means that they keep their NYD time slot, but then they don't get the support of the Big Ten and Pac-12... and they NEED the support of those two leagues to get anything done.

Kevin Warren is one of the two most powerful people in college football right now. In fact, this summer it seemed like he sort of relished that position after looking weak for the last two years with his Covid response and being caught off guard by Texas/OU to the SEC. He had no problem leading an "alliance" that stopped CFP expansion last year (which was clearly not in anyone's best interest but was a pure power move) and he had no problem swiftly taking the LA schools from his partner league. He needs no one to do his dirty work. If the Big Ten was dug in on this, they'd be out in front of it.

Kevin Warren actually doesn't talk very much at all through the press. He had several interviews surrounding the USC/UCLA expansion and new TV deals, but otherwise is a pretty behind-the-scenes person. Warren doesn't do nearly as many interviews as his predecessor of Jim Delany did or SEC commissioner Greg Sankey currently does.

There's a whole lot of drama going on here, but it's just for 2 years. It will almost certainly get punted. The big drama will play out starting in 2026...which they should start talking about the day after they get 24/25 sorted.

I wonder if the Rose isn't causing themselves and also all the other bowls needless complications for the future? If I'm on the Committee, I'm starting to wonder if I want to jack around with the bowls at all starting in 2026. Just announce your 2026 schedule and see if the Rose or any other major bowl really wants to go up against a CFP playoff game. First round and quarterfinals on home sites, Semis and Final are all 3 bid out every year. That might not be the most likely outcome today, but if the Rose doesn't back down then it could become the most likely outcome Thursday.

Maybe it's a bit of a short term pain, but it would break the backs of all the bowls eventually, taking out 6 groups that often have their own agenda and can be at odds with all the Commissioners and Presidents at times.

(11-29-2022 01:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  To me, the biggest piece of news here is that the expansion for 2024 and 2025 is NOT tied in to 2026 and beyond.

A source said the CFP has assured the Rose Bowl it will do everything it can to work around the Jan. 1 2 p.m. PT slot, but has asked all of the bowls to take a leap of faith because the commissioners can't be bound to promises that will or won't impact the value as they're trying to negotiate the next deal.

Because this was ALWAYS the way it should have been. You cant open the playoff to other networks when you've already sold the EXCLUSIVE rights to the playoff to ESPN through 2025. So---it ALWAYS made sense to expand the playoff ASAP and take whatever you can squeeze out of ESPN in those years. Yes---the Big10 and Pac12 are correct---its best if the CFP is shared among multiple networks---but that cant be fixed until the end of the current deal (and that has ALWAYS been an unarguable contractual fact). Making that inability to open it up to other networks a do or die factor in early expansion simply means you were guaranteed to leave additional money on the table over the next few years for really no good reason. In other words---either way---you're still end up with the CFP televised by just one network through the end of the current deal whether you expand early or not.

(11-29-2022 03:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 01:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  To me, the biggest piece of news here is that the expansion for 2024 and 2025 is NOT tied in to 2026 and beyond.

A source said the CFP has assured the Rose Bowl it will do everything it can to work around the Jan. 1 2 p.m. PT slot, but has asked all of the bowls to take a leap of faith because the commissioners can't be bound to promises that will or won't impact the value as they're trying to negotiate the next deal.

Because this was ALWAYS the way it should have been. You cant open the playoff to other networks when you've already sold the EXCLUSIVE rights to the playoff to ESPN through 2025. So---it ALWAYS made sense to expand the playoff ASAP and take whatever you can squeeze out of ESPN in those years. Yes---the Big10 and Pac12 are correct---its best if the CFP is shared among multiple networks---but that cant be fixed until the end of the current deal (and that has ALWAYS been an unarguable contractual fact). Making that inability to open it up to other networks a do or die factor in early expansion simply means you were guaranteed to leave additional money on the table over the next few years for really no good reason. In other words---either way---you're still end up with the CFP televised by just one network through the end of the current deal whether you expand early or not.

Well, you could have worked out with ESPN what a reasonable way to split the package was going forward.

I was wrong about this--I expected ESPN to use early playoff expansion as a bargaining chip to secure their red lines for 2026 and beyond, whatever they are. Now they're in a position where, theoretically, Amazon could just roll in and buy the whole thing.