(12-02-2022 10:49 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-02-2022 10:43 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(12-02-2022 10:25 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(12-02-2022 10:12 AM)Poster Wrote:  Quarterfinals need to be at team's home stadiums. Having #1 vs #12 games at a neutral site is absurd. If you're relating this to pro sports, I'm not sure why you think that a bunch of neutral games is a good thing. The better team has home field advantage in every pro sport postseason round/game except for the NFL Super Bowl.

If the Big Ten seriously wants its champion to play its quarterfinal home game in Pasadena, California than I guess they should be allowed to do so.

Would be an interesting solution to the “cold weather problem”. Pasadena gets a pre-Christmas quarterfinal where the Big Ten (if they are a top 4 champ) or Pac-12 hosts. If neither qualify (unlikely) and no other bye team volunteers to play in Pasadena, the #4 champ “hosts” there.

I think there's a less than 1% chance that the Big Ten would seriously send its champ to Pasadena while the rest of the top 4 has an actual home game. Yeah, I guess in the extreme off chance that if the Big Ten is willing to forfeit its home field advantage, the playoff committee would allow them to do so.

Your perception there is off. It is cold and miserable in the midwest in the winter, and people welcome the chance to escape and go somewhere warm. Home field advantage is a thing, but Christmas-week bowl trips are also a thing, and the people who do bowl trips also give money to the school.

Quote:But I was mostly suggesting that as the idea the committee could propose to the Big Ten to get them to STFU.

To quote from the Men In Black movie, "Your proposal is acceptable."

That would maintain and in fact heighten the Rose Bowl's unique status and romance, which is what the Rose Bowl and Big Ten want. (Assuming that the Big Ten is still enamoured of the Rose Bowl, and that Warren doesn't see the Rose Bowl as a "Sears and Roebuck" institution.)

The B1G Presidents don't always agree with Warren and have in fact thwarted his plans on many occasions. I think it's more important what THEY want than what he does.

(12-02-2022 12:03 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-02-2022 11:55 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-02-2022 11:43 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-02-2022 11:35 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-02-2022 11:28 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I think in their mind, that's already a settled matter, so why the need to reiterate it?

I think so too, but it wasn't specifically repeated.

"So you're saying there's a chance?"

I think if there was a change, they would have announced that as well.

I agree. But apparently post 2026 isn't as set in stone. So there is some chance of changes to the September paramters for post 2026, and a very remote chance of changes for 2024-25 that have been agreed but not announced.

I think people are reading too much into this.

The SEC and Big Ten Championship Games (along with every other P5 CCG and even the G5 CCGs) increase in value with the top 4 conference champs getting a bye as opposed to the top 4 without consideration to conference championships.

It's a key component to the whole playoff system that I think a lot of people are *really* underestimating as a general matter (along with point to the value of the multiple sub-races within the overall playoff race that keep the whole regular season and all of the CCGs more valuable).

Everybody has to win at least four postseason games to win it all:

1. Top four bye conference champs have to win conference title game and three playoff games.
2. Losers in conference title games and independents and conference at-large teams that do not play in conference title games have to win four playoff games.

The 5th and 6th best conference champs that do not get byes have to win FIVE postseason games to win the title. Conference title game plus four playoff games. Meaning the G5 rep and the worst P5 rep have a little higher mountain to climb.

Further to the last point, we have to take into account how much of a massive contractual point it was for the NFL Network to even just get 1 "flex game" that CBS or Fox would otherwise have, much less 3 flex games. CBS and Fox are *each* paying the NFL over $2 billion per year. There's absolutely no way that the NFL Network would give those rights back.

(12-02-2022 03:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-02-2022 03:00 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(12-02-2022 01:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-02-2022 12:41 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I would have gotten rid of the CCGs and taken top 4 from each P5, but since we are here, the third Saturday of December is not a big deal. They already play Bowls there to kickstart Bowl Season. Football fans are cord cutting and will skip crappy NFL Network games. Of course the 5v12 and the 6v11 will be duds most years, so you can put the best games in the early windows and the dud games overlapping with NFL Network Prime Time. CFB already goes H2H with TNF for some select matchups so it's nothing new.

Friday night game should be one of the marquee games... maybe the 7v10.

Big Noon 1st round should be THE marquee game. OSU in Indy or Big 12 team in Jerry World. Put the dud games vs a G5 H2H in the 4:00 and 8:00 ET windows against the NFL Network. I'm not sure if the NFL is doing a triple header... although maybe the NFL Network can do a 9:30am game that simulcasts on Nickelodeon as well to free up the playoffs (too late in the year for an international game I'd imagine).

NFL Network has a triple header on that day, so it's pick your poison if you're the CFP.

The "Big Noon" time slot isn't the best one - games like Michigan-Ohio State thrive there in *spite* of the kickoff time and, as evidenced by the moaning about the Rose Bowl's late afternoon time slot on NYD, the powers that be clearly believe that time slot is more valuable than a playoff game at 12 pm ET on that day.

So, considering all of the options, my guess is that the CFP will have a game on Thursday night, a game on Friday night, and two games on Saturday in the late afternoon and prime time. Maybe there there's a game on Friday night and three games on Saturday if they feel going up against the early afternoon NFL Network game is better than going up against the Thursday night Amazon game.

Once again, the CFP has to know that the NFL schedule is set in stone at this point. There's no negotiating with them - the NFL is the most powerful entity in *entertainment* (not just sports) by FAR. Everyone works around the NFL and not the other way around. The TV ratings bear this out - the NFL crushes everything it goes up against.

What's to stop them from moving those Network games to international games in the morning window earlier in the year as the NFL adds more games overseas? Perhaps they will overlap in the inaugural season or two, but more morning games can be scheduled, unless there is something in the TV contract that stipulates three NFL Network games third Sat in Dec end of story. I don't believe that to be the case.

The TV contract for the NFL Networks games is actually very prescriptive.

Very importantly, it's not just a tripleheader, but rather it's a tripleheader of *flexed* games that aren't decided until a week or two before. The TNF, SNF and MNF games are off the table and then Fox and CBS each get to protect a certain number of Sunday afternoon games, but then NFL Network gets to choose any other 3 games that they think are the best matchups available and don't have to decide until very late in the process (e.g. we still don't know which games are going to be played on 12/17 this year). That was all part of the trade-off for NFL Network losing TNF and fulfilling the network's obligations to the cable carriers (or else their subscription fees could be reduced).

So, teams won't even know if they're going to play on the NFL Network tripleheader until a week or two before, much less having an international game.

That goes back to my overall point: the NFL ain't doing s**t to help college football. The CFP will need to work around the dates and time slots that the NFL has already claimed and, where there's an unavoidable conflict, essentially make a choice of the "least bad" option.

There shouldn't be any unavoidable conflicts, the first round games can be played on Tuesdays and Wednesdays if necessary...it's the Holidays anyway. Then the CFP owns NYD with either 4 straight games for the QF, or perhaps 3 straight games with 1 in prime time on NY eve. After that you have 3 more games to figure out, ezpz.

(12-02-2022 03:56 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(12-02-2022 03:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-02-2022 03:00 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(12-02-2022 01:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-02-2022 12:41 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I would have gotten rid of the CCGs and taken top 4 from each P5, but since we are here, the third Saturday of December is not a big deal. They already play Bowls there to kickstart Bowl Season. Football fans are cord cutting and will skip crappy NFL Network games. Of course the 5v12 and the 6v11 will be duds most years, so you can put the best games in the early windows and the dud games overlapping with NFL Network Prime Time. CFB already goes H2H with TNF for some select matchups so it's nothing new.

Friday night game should be one of the marquee games... maybe the 7v10.

Big Noon 1st round should be THE marquee game. OSU in Indy or Big 12 team in Jerry World. Put the dud games vs a G5 H2H in the 4:00 and 8:00 ET windows against the NFL Network. I'm not sure if the NFL is doing a triple header... although maybe the NFL Network can do a 9:30am game that simulcasts on Nickelodeon as well to free up the playoffs (too late in the year for an international game I'd imagine).

NFL Network has a triple header on that day, so it's pick your poison if you're the CFP.

The "Big Noon" time slot isn't the best one - games like Michigan-Ohio State thrive there in *spite* of the kickoff time and, as evidenced by the moaning about the Rose Bowl's late afternoon time slot on NYD, the powers that be clearly believe that time slot is more valuable than a playoff game at 12 pm ET on that day.

So, considering all of the options, my guess is that the CFP will have a game on Thursday night, a game on Friday night, and two games on Saturday in the late afternoon and prime time. Maybe there there's a game on Friday night and three games on Saturday if they feel going up against the early afternoon NFL Network game is better than going up against the Thursday night Amazon game.

Once again, the CFP has to know that the NFL schedule is set in stone at this point. There's no negotiating with them - the NFL is the most powerful entity in *entertainment* (not just sports) by FAR. Everyone works around the NFL and not the other way around. The TV ratings bear this out - the NFL crushes everything it goes up against.

What's to stop them from moving those Network games to international games in the morning window earlier in the year as the NFL adds more games overseas? Perhaps they will overlap in the inaugural season or two, but more morning games can be scheduled, unless there is something in the TV contract that stipulates three NFL Network games third Sat in Dec end of story. I don't believe that to be the case.

The TV contract for the NFL Networks games is actually very prescriptive.

Very importantly, it's not just a tripleheader, but rather it's a tripleheader of *flexed* games that aren't decided until a week or two before. The TNF, SNF and MNF games are off the table and then Fox and CBS each get to protect a certain number of Sunday afternoon games, but then NFL Network gets to choose any other 3 games that they think are the best matchups available and don't have to decide until very late in the process (e.g. we still don't know which games are going to be played on 12/17 this year). That was all part of the trade-off for NFL Network losing TNF and fulfilling the network's obligations to the cable carriers (or else their subscription fees could be reduced).

So, teams won't even know if they're going to play on the NFL Network tripleheader until a week or two before, much less having an international game.

That goes back to my overall point: the NFL ain't doing s**t to help college football. The CFP will need to work around the dates and time slots that the NFL has already claimed and, where there's an unavoidable conflict, essentially make a choice of the "least bad" option.

There shouldn't be any unavoidable conflicts, the first round games can be played on Tuesdays and Wednesdays if necessary...it's the Holidays anyway. Then the CFP owns NYD with either 4 straight games for the QF, or perhaps 3 straight games with 1 in prime time on NY eve. After that you have 3 more games to figure out, ezpz.

I guess it depends on how viable the CFP thinks Tuesday and Wednesday dates are for first round games (especially with them being on campus). My guess is that's a bridge too far (and I'm someone that generally thinks more like a TV executive on these matters). At least one Friday night game seems to be a given since there wouldn't be an NFL conflict there.

If the NFL Network games are flex... then I guess it's dead in the water. Stupid ass CFB has no one else to blame but themselves. There were open Saturdays throughout the calendar well before the NFL monopolized everything.

Otherwise, you ship out Army/Navy to the following weekend along with Heisman. Let the NFL lose its soul and go H2H with that.

Question will the 5-12 home teams keep all the revenue like a normal home game?

(12-03-2022 09:20 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  Question will the 5-12 home teams keep all the revenue like a normal home game?

I don’t think they’ve stated this yet.

My guess is it will be a similar model to what the NFL uses for its playoff games: the ticket revenue goes to the CFP while the home team keeps any ancillary revenue (such as parking, concessions, etc.). So, it wouldn’t really be a direct revenue boom for a team to host a playoff game compared to a normal home game (although there are a lot of indirect benefits like exposure for the campus, hotels and restaurants filled up in the community, etc.).