... when the Big Ten takes (arguably?) the two most valuable brands from its long-time Rose Bowl partner (with perhaps four additional Pac-1210 schools on tap), thus creating instability that continues to rattle the College Sports ecosystem?
Is it possible for Kevin Warren to be fully committed both to what's best (i.e., most lucrative) for his conference and what's best for the survival and success of an iconic event America has known and loved for so many years?
And, if the answer is no, what then happens to the Capital One Rose Bowl?
I don't know about alignment but it definitely shows that any potential "alliance" between conferences is meaningless. If there is no official contract, it means nothing.
The long term affiliation between Big Ten, PAC is over. It's a whole new ballgame.
The Rose Bowl stadium owners (IDK how much overlap there is between them and the people who organize the Rose Bowl game) are supposed to have urged UCLA to move to the Big Ten in hopes that it’ll fix their recent attendance issues.
We’re supposed to help the Rose Bowl deal with a problem they created. It’s absurd.
(11-11-2022 09:22 AM)goofus Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know about alignment but it definitely shows that any potential "alliance" between conferences is meaningless. If there is no official contract, it means nothing.
The long term affiliation between Big Ten, PAC is over. It's a whole new ballgame.
And, as a fan of a school blessed with Gary Barta as athletic director, what does that does mean for the Capital One Rose Bowl once its agreement with the CFP expires after the 2025 season?
These two quotes from the recent ESPN story seem pertinent ...
CFP source: "We have not decided anything about 2026 and beyond. Should the Rose Bowl tell us where to play our games? Most of us think not."
Laura Farber, a top Rose Bowl official: "We still believe it would be a great game with a Big Ten team and a Pac-12 team that may not be the conference champion, but could still provide a wonderful game."
Quick, someone tell Laura the "Pac-12" as she knows it may not be here in 2026 ...
(11-11-2022 08:38 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote: [ -> ]... when the Big Ten takes (arguably?) the two most valuable brands from its long-time Rose Bowl partner (with perhaps four additional Pac-1210 schools on tap), thus creating instability that continues to rattle the College Sports ecosystem?
Is it possible for Kevin Warren to be fully committed both to what's best (i.e., most lucrative) for his conference and what's best for the survival and success of an iconic event America has known and loved for so many years?
And, if the answer is no, what then happens to the Capital One Rose Bowl?
That stopped being something he could control when the CFP went to four teams. The USCLA move doesn't change that.
(11-11-2022 10:52 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]That stopped being something he could control when the CFP went to four teams. The USCLA move doesn't change that.
Ahhh, even better.
The Rose Bowl's stature and status plummets like the Bruins' home football attendance and the B1G commissioner emerges clean as a whistle.
"There was nothing we could do"
UCLA needs to get **** blocked from the B1G by the Board and USC needs to renege on its B1G invitation soon after as Stanford or any other partner will make Olympic sports challenges insurmountable. That's the only way this thing gets saved... 0.8% chance, but there is a chance.
To me, Warren neither being quoted or even mentioned in the Dinich article raises a question as to whether the conference is all-in United with the Rose Bowl going forward. Particularly given grabbing the LA schools and devastating what until then was presented as a sacred partnership between the two conferences and the Rose Bowl.
(11-11-2022 11:14 AM)Just Joe Wrote: [ -> ]To me, Warren neither being quoted or even mentioned in the Dinich article raises a question as to whether the conference is all-in United with the Rose Bowl going forward. Particularly given grabbing the LA schools and devastating what until then was presented as a sacred partnership between the two conferences and the Rose Bowl.
"Actions speak louder than words"
Well, unless, it's creating The Alliance ... that "action" didn't speak very loudly at all
(11-11-2022 08:38 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote: [ -> ]... when the Big Ten takes (arguably?) the two most valuable brands from its long-time Rose Bowl partner (with perhaps four additional Pac-1210 schools on tap), thus creating instability that continues to rattle the College Sports ecosystem?
It says that when two schools contact a conference to apply for membership, and the media partners say they will pay more on a per school basis if those two schools are in the conference, that those two schools are going to be accepted.
IOW, what we already knew. The surprise was that USC and UCLA decided that they wanted to go, not that the Big Ten accepted them when they made that decision.
Quote: Is it possible for Kevin Warren to be fully committed both to what's best (i.e., most lucrative) for his conference and what's best for the survival and success of an iconic event America has known and loved for so many years?
Is it possible for Kevin Warren to have two first priorities?
Uhhh .... no, that would not be how "priorities" work.
Is it possible for Kevin Warren to have more than one priority?
Obviously, it's just that one of them will be the first priority, and the lower level priorities will be contingent on not interfering with the first priority.
Quote: And, if the answer is no, what then happens to the Capital One Rose Bowl?
Very similar to what happens to the Rose Bowl if the two schools do not apply to leave the PAC ... because under the CFP12 system, a QF bowl can only have one affiliation exercised in any given year, so the "Big Ten contracted to meet the PAC" is gone, except possibly once in three years if the Rose Bowl's gets its preferred outcome (which has been public knowledge for a long while now).
(11-11-2022 09:27 AM)Poster Wrote: [ -> ]The Rose Bowl stadium owners (IDK how much overlap there is between them and the people who organize the Rose Bowl game) are supposed to have urged UCLA to move to the Big Ten in hopes that it’ll fix their recent attendance issues.
We’re supposed to help the Rose Bowl deal with a problem they created. It’s absurd.
The Rose Bowl Stadium is owned by the city of Pasadena. The city of Pasadena did not urge UCLA to join the Big Ten. That is just garbage. UCLA's attendance issues are not about the opponent. It is more complicated than that. The Rose Bowl is 26 miles from the UCLA campus. Add the traffic, the high cost of season tickets, the performance of the team, uncertain kickoff times, the myriad of entertainment options, and you get an idea of some of the issues.
There is no CFP contract beyond the current 12-year deal. The Rose Bowl has said they are willing to make concessions in the current deal to enable an expanded playoff in the last two years of the current contract, but they are asking for assurances in the new contract. It is a negotiation. They will eventually resolve their differences.
(11-11-2022 12:08 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-11-2022 09:27 AM)Poster Wrote: [ -> ]The Rose Bowl stadium owners (IDK how much overlap there is between them and the people who organize the Rose Bowl game) are supposed to have urged UCLA to move to the Big Ten in hopes that it’ll fix their recent attendance issues.
We’re supposed to help the Rose Bowl deal with a problem they created. It’s absurd.
The Rose Bowl Stadium is owned by the city of Pasadena. The city of Pasadena did not urge UCLA to join the Big Ten. That is just garbage. UCLA's attendance issues are not about the opponent. It is more complicated than that. The Rose Bowl is 26 miles from the UCLA campus. Add the traffic, the high cost of season tickets, the performance of the team, uncertain kickoff times, the myriad of entertainment options, and you get an idea of some of the issues.
There is no CFP contract beyond the current 12-year deal. The Rose Bowl has said they are willing to make concessions in the current deal to enable an expanded playoff in the last two years of the current contract, but they are asking for assurances in the new contract. It is a negotiation. They will eventually resolve their differences.
Good post, although I'm not sure those differences will get resolved in a satisfactory manner for the Rose Bowl — (again) particularly if the quarterfinals move to campus and there are just three (at most) CFP games at designated neutral sites.
Tradition and gorgeous view of the San Gabriel Mountains aside, there would seem to be little way for the 100-year-old Rose Bowl facility operated by the city of Pasadena to compete with, say, the amenities offered by the billionaire-owned So-FI stadium 21 miles to the southwest.
Looking forward, what the Rose Bowl could pull off with some creativity is playing the absolute pre-eminent "Kickoff Classic" game each and every season.
Screw lifeless domes like Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta or Jerry World in Arlington for these matchups. Play the game at the "Cathedral of College Football" and let fans in venue and on TV enjoy that beautiful sunset at the start of the season instead of the end.
That might be making the best of a difficult situation for Mrs. Farber's bunch.
What a genuinely terrible idea.
(11-11-2022 12:26 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote: [ -> ]Good post, although I'm not sure those differences will get resolved in a satisfactory manner for the Rose Bowl — (again) particularly if the quarterfinals move to campus and there are just three (at most) CFP games at designated neutral sites. ...
But (again), that is a question for later CFP12 cycles, as this round is being negotiated under a framework with the QF played at bowls.
(11-11-2022 12:45 PM)BruceMcF Wrote: [ -> ] (11-11-2022 12:26 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote: [ -> ]Good post, although I'm not sure those differences will get resolved in a satisfactory manner for the Rose Bowl — (again) particularly if the quarterfinals move to campus and there are just three (at most) CFP games at designated neutral sites. ...
But (again), that is a question for later CFP12 cycles, as this round is being negotiated under a framework with the QF played at bowls.
Yeah, good point.
I'm more looking ahead to 2026 and beyond.
As opposed to the (likely) two-year hybrid in '24 and '25 where the "let's expand to 12 as best we can under contractual constraints so we can make that extra money" mindset is ruling the day.
Good chance 2025 and 2026 formats look very different once the old deals with the bowls are history
(11-11-2022 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]"Deserve's got nothin' to do with it!" (Unforgiven)
Bid it all out! Maximize the revenue. It is a business! The Rose Bowl is as irrelevant as the rest of them since the BCS.
It's a business. Throwing that free advertising away is an opportunity cost that has to be counted along with all of the other costs and benefits.
And those who are thinking "the free advertising doesn't help
my conference" ... to be sure if you are the ACC or Big12 or (post 2025) PAC, the odds of being one of the direct beneficiaries of the free advertising might not sit very high, but the SEC ought to be pushing back against the 2QF + 1 exhibition&SF plan with a permanent QF plan, because under that approach, more often than not, an SEC team is going to be one of the teams riding in the Rose Bowl parade.
(11-11-2022 01:00 PM)BruceMcF Wrote: [ -> ] (11-11-2022 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]"Deserve's got nothin' to do with it!" (Unforgiven)
Bid it all out! Maximize the revenue. It is a business! The Rose Bowl is as irrelevant as the rest of them since the BCS.
It's a business. Throwing that free advertising away is an opportunity cost that has to be counted along with all of the other costs and benefits.
And those who are thinking "the free advertising doesn't help my conference" ... to be sure if you are the ACC or Big12 or (post 2025) PAC, the odds of being one of the direct beneficiaries of the free advertising might not sit very high, but the SEC ought to be pushing back against the 2QF + 1 exhibition&SF plan with a permanent QF plan, because under that approach, more often than not, an SEC team is going to be one of the teams riding in the Rose Bowl parade.
So SEC schools where it (i.e. FOOTBALL!) just means more should prioritize the PR splash of appearing in the Tournament of Roses Parade over one (or more) school(s) hosting a quarterfinal playoff game?
![[Image: ezgif-com-gif-maker-2.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/tJTmXjq7/ezgif-com-gif-maker-2.jpg)
(11-11-2022 01:08 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote: [ -> ]So SEC schools where it (i.e. FOOTBALL!) just means more should prioritize the PR splash of appearing in the Tournament of Roses Parade over one (or more) school(s) hosting a quarterfinal playoff game? ...
To be sure, the main point is that the CFP12 is bigger with the Rose Bowl hosting an annual QF than with the system the Rose Bowl proposed last year and is still pushing, and the CFP12 pot is bigger with the system the Rose Bowl proposed than the proposal of several in this discussion for the CFP12 to throw that free advertising away.
(11-11-2022 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (11-11-2022 12:26 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote: [ -> ] (11-11-2022 12:08 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-11-2022 09:27 AM)Poster Wrote: [ -> ]The Rose Bowl stadium owners (IDK how much overlap there is between them and the people who organize the Rose Bowl game) are supposed to have urged UCLA to move to the Big Ten in hopes that it’ll fix their recent attendance issues.
We’re supposed to help the Rose Bowl deal with a problem they created. It’s absurd.
The Rose Bowl Stadium is owned by the city of Pasadena. The city of Pasadena did not urge UCLA to join the Big Ten. That is just garbage. UCLA's attendance issues are not about the opponent. It is more complicated than that. The Rose Bowl is 26 miles from the UCLA campus. Add the traffic, the high cost of season tickets, the performance of the team, uncertain kickoff times, the myriad of entertainment options, and you get an idea of some of the issues.
There is no CFP contract beyond the current 12-year deal. The Rose Bowl has said they are willing to make concessions in the current deal to enable an expanded playoff in the last two years of the current contract, but they are asking for assurances in the new contract. It is a negotiation. They will eventually resolve their differences.
Good post, although I'm not sure those differences will get resolved in a satisfactory manner for the Rose Bowl — (again) particularly if the quarterfinals move to campus and there are just three (at most) CFP games at designated neutral sites.
Tradition and gorgeous view of the San Gabriel Mountains aside, there would seem to be little way for the 100-year-old Rose Bowl facility operated by the city of Pasadena to compete with, say, the amenities offered by the billionaire-owned So-FI stadium 21 miles to the southwest.
Looking forward, what the Rose Bowl could pull off with some creativity is playing the absolute pre-eminent "Kickoff Classic" game each and every season.
Screw lifeless domes like Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta or Jerry World in Arlington for these matchups. Play the game at the "Cathedral of College Football" and let fans in venue and on TV enjoy that beautiful sunset at the start of the season instead of the end.
That might be making the best of a difficult situation for Mrs. Farber's bunch.
"Deserve's got nothin' to do with it!" (Unforgiven)
Bid it all out! Maximize the revenue. It is a business! The Rose Bowl is as irrelevant as the rest of them since the BCS.
In Business, we are understandably reluctant to throw away a brand or product that has value unless there is no alternative. Surely some time can be spent looking for that alternative.