In the next CFP contract why not guarantee the Rose and Sugar get the semis every year. Since the Earth would stop spinning if those 2 bowls were not played on New Years Day and a full 3 year rotation has shown that when the CFP semis are on NYD interest is sky high why even rotate them?

I imagine it's because there's such a long tie to the B1G/PAC match-up in the Rose Bowl. In playoff years, there's not a guarantee this match-up will occur. Oregon played Florida St in the 1st one. In the non-playoff years, there's a guaranteed B1G/PAC game. Last year it was Iowa/Stanford and this year it was USC/Penn St. Likewise, the Sugar Bowl is historically the bowl game of the SEC champ. The tie-in is now with the XII champ. It's possible that in playoff years the Sugar Bowl could be without an SEC team.

Two things:

1) Fiesta and Orange were in the BCS ... so tough to see how you could cut those two out

2) Big Ten, PAC, Big 12, and SEC make $40M each every year the Rose and Sugar aren't the CFP semi's. That's $80M/3 = $26.67M average per year.
If they were the semi's every year, then they'd only get $6M per year.

Better question: why should those bowls be allowed to lock in on New Year's Day? They moved around in the BCS, so why can't they move around now?

(01-05-2017 03:52 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Two things:

1) Fiesta and Orange were in the BCS ... so tough to see how you could cut those two out

2) Big Ten, PAC, Big 12, and SEC make $40M each every year the Rose and Sugar aren't the CFP semi's. That's $80M/3 = $26.67M average per year.
If they were the semi's every year, then they'd only get $6M per year.

1. Cotton Bowl got dropped when the Bowl Alliance morphed into the BCS.

2. Can't argue with the money, but I do wonder how those two bowls payout so much money in non semifinal years. Im sure something could be figured out to protect the 4 conferences using the Fiesta and Cotton Bowls.

(01-05-2017 03:55 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Better question: why should those bowls be allowed to lock in on New Year's Day? They moved around in the BCS, so why can't they move around now?

Well the Rose would be more than happy to say screw it and go back to hosting the Big 10/Pac 12 champions. They would be fine and get the TV contract they need to make it sustainable. Im sure the Big 10 and Pac 12 make their participation in the CFP contingent on taking care of the Rose Bowl. And without their participation you have the Bowl Alliance, which did not work. As for the Sugar, if the Rose Bowl is getting special treatment than you best bet the Sugar Bowl will too

(01-05-2017 04:07 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 03:55 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Better question: why should those bowls be allowed to lock in on New Year's Day? They moved around in the BCS, so why can't they move around now?

Well the Rose would be more than happy to say screw it and go back to hosting the Big 10/Pac 12 champions. They would be fine and get the TV contract they need to make it sustainable. Im sure the Big 10 and Pac 12 make their participation in the CFP contingent on taking care of the Rose Bowl. And without their participation you have the Bowl Alliance, which did not work. As for the Sugar, if the Rose Bowl is getting special treatment than you best bet the Sugar Bowl will too

Agree completely.

I'd let the Rose and Sugar just be the Rose and Sugar. Move the playoff to JUST the other bowls. The Rose is a pain in the butt to deal with because of all thier tradition and needs. The reality is the Rose and Sugar are extremely valuable as they are. Let them be on thier traditional date with their traditional teams. Let the Rose and Sugar just be the Rose and Sugar. You need these 2 bowls for cooperation purposes---so they of course stay part of the NY-6, but you just use the other bowls that are easier to work with as the rotating CFP.

Money.

Would you rather have 2 bowls pay you $20 million per year or 6 bowls pay you $10 million per year?

EDIT: I should have said "bowls pay" not "teams pay"

(01-05-2017 04:07 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Well the Rose would be more than happy to say screw it and go back to hosting the Big 10/Pac 12 champions.

No, they wouldn't. They would prefer having a playoff game in Pasadena every year. The conferences might like the annual traditional matchup, but the Rose Bowl committee wants to have a premier game as often as they can get it and not risk eventually becoming just another non-playoff game, which is what would happen at some point if they opted out of the playoff.

In fact, I bet the Rose and Sugar wouldn't have minded hosting the semi every year, and paying seven figures to the conferences of the teams that made the games.

And I'm sure the Big Ten and SEC quickly slapped that down.

(01-05-2017 05:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 04:07 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Well the Rose would be more than happy to say screw it and go back to hosting the Big 10/Pac 12 champions.

No, they wouldn't. They would prefer having a playoff game in Pasadena every year. The conferences might like the annual traditional matchup, but the Rose Bowl committee wants to have a premier game as often as they can get it and not risk eventually becoming just another non-playoff game, which is what would happen at some point if they opted out of the playoff.

So if the playoff gave them an ultimatum that they would have to move from NYD on non semi years they would be ok with that?

(01-05-2017 05:42 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 05:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 04:07 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Well the Rose would be more than happy to say screw it and go back to hosting the Big 10/Pac 12 champions.

No, they wouldn't. They would prefer having a playoff game in Pasadena every year. The conferences might like the annual traditional matchup, but the Rose Bowl committee wants to have a premier game as often as they can get it and not risk eventually becoming just another non-playoff game, which is what would happen at some point if they opted out of the playoff.

So if the playoff gave them an ultimatum that they would have to move from NYD on non semi years they would be ok with that?

That won't happen because "the playoff" isn't the regulars on this message board; it's the conference commissioners.

Make it a 3 bowl rotation. Rose, Sugar and Orange. Each year two host the playoff and the 3rd hosts the NCG.

Because it was a negotiated outcome, and that was the result that all parties would agree to.

One reason to rotate is those CFP bowls have more value as national semifinals.

An expansion to a NY8 as I've talked about can bring 2 more large TV markets to the CFP further raising value. A byproduct is the Rose-Orange would only host semifinals once every 4 years.

Well if the rose and sugar are just happy to be there then why not force them off their traditional dates in non semi years in order to maximize interest in your product?

(01-05-2017 05:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 04:07 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Well the Rose would be more than happy to say screw it and go back to hosting the Big 10/Pac 12 champions.

No, they wouldn't. They would prefer having a playoff game in Pasadena every year. The conferences might like the annual traditional matchup, but the Rose Bowl committee wants to have a premier game as often as they can get it and not risk eventually becoming just another non-playoff game, which is what would happen at some point if they opted out of the playoff.

The Big 12 and SEC own the Sugar Bowl. So there is a reason it gets on NYD every year.

A couple of observations.

First, it is clear that New Year's Day is far superior to New Year's Eve to maximize viewership for the semifinals. I would generally favor moving the semis permanently to New Year's Day. However, I don't see why the Rose and Sugar should be guaranteed the host slots.

The Sugar is not historically associated with New Year's night. It has been in a variety of time slots over the years. Historically (pre-BCS), the Orange Bowl was the traditional New Year's night game. Further, although the Sugar has a generous contract from ESPN, it has not performed as well as the Orange in the TV ratings since the start of the NY6 format.

The Rose Bowl, however, is an important part of the tradition of college football. I would not favor moving it from its current time slot for any reason.

I would propose holding the semifinals on New Year's Day every year, but rotate the bowls as follows. Use the current bowl rotation, but rotate the participating games' time slots to accommodate keeping the games on New Year's Day:

Year 1: 2 pm Cotton Bowl (Access Bowl), 5:30 pm Rose Bowl (Semi), 9 pm Sugar Bowl (Semi)
Year 2: 2 pm Cotton Bowl (Semi), 5:30 pm Rose Bowl (B1G-P12), 9 pm Orange Bowl (Semi)
Year 3: 2 pm Peach Bowl (Semi), 5:30 pm Rose Bowl (B1G-P12), 9 pm Fiesta Bowl (Semi)

(01-06-2017 06:10 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Well if the rose and sugar are just happy to be there then why not force them off their traditional dates in non semi years in order to maximize interest in your product?

There's nothing to force. The Rose and Sugar are NYD bowls, except when NYD is a Sunday because then the NFL owns it (not literally, but there would be no point going head-to-head with them).

No one wants them off those slots, and no one can make them leave those slots. Further more, the CFP isn't some autonomous, aloof body ... it's made up of the conferences. And the most powerful conferences have a vested interest in maintaining the power and public interest in the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl.


I really don't see what you think you have to work with, here ....

The best you could hope for would be for the Rose and Sugar to be the semi-final every year, but then making it so the Big Ten, PAC, Big 12, and SEC were still paid like they are in the current agreement ($40M each per year, on 2 of the 3 years of the rotation ... or $26.67M per year on average). Not sure if you could get the 10 FBS confs to agree to that ... but maybe.