(10-04-2021 06:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 02:39 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 01:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  One problem I have in situations like this is that supporters of teams like Cincy, and the top G5 team generally, always focus on the perceived injustice of what is happening above them, but they take for granted that they belong ahead of teams below them. E.g., last year, there was a lot of gnashing of teeth about how Cincy was hitting a "glass ceiling" in the CFP and could not crack the top 4. But on the other hand, regarding the NY6 spot, Cincy was always well ahead of Coastal Carolina in the polls and CFP, despite Coastal having an arguably better resume than Cincy. But they didn't want to talk about that. They wanted to talk about why was a one-loss Texas AM or whoever ranked ahead of them.

I don’t disagree with the spirit of this, but, the bias is applied across all non-majors because you saw some sort of pecking order come out of it especially last year. Not just how Cincy couldn’t climb, but how Coastal needed to come from off the board and then slowly rise, too. I don’t disagree that a deck was stacked toward Cincy/AAC and that you saw it held against Coastal (and also SJSU?). It’s all wrong.

The bigger gripe should be toward how Iowa State climbed over so many others to get into position to get a playoff spot if it came to it, or how much help Ohio State got from everyone to keep a place, or how Oregon was bad, but good enough to grab a ranking so that you didn’t have an unranked AQ in the NY6. That’s the junk I think we’re seeing even now with Kentucky, OSU, and basically eveyone but Indiana, Rutgers, and Maryland in the Big Ten East.

But, I don’t disagree with there being a bias again. I think Coastal is a stud this year. Maybe better than last year. Both Cincy and Coastal could win out, and only Cincy will probably get the NY6 spot at best. Coastal’s hosed until there’s the establishment of top ranked AQ conference champs…but, the ceilings will still be in place for Sun Belt versus AAC or MWC heads up.

FWIW, I was mystified by how high Iowa State was ranked in the waning weeks of last year as well. That was a head-scratcher to me and IIRC I commented on it.

What shut me up was that they did go out and win the Fiesta Bowl over the PAC champ. Albeit a PAC champ that was like 3-2 or something.

That shouldn't have shut me up, because performance in a game doesn't mean you merited being in that game to begin with. But it did.

It was a screwy, virus year.

One of those losses was the 2nd game vs. OU. They split. ULL they lost early in the season. Then they lost by 3 to a good Okie St. squad on the road.

https://westvirginia.forums.rivals.com/t...nt.260846/

""...I think we are seeing some major shifts in college athletics from this summer,” Warren said during the broadcast of Friday night’s game between Iowa and Wisconsin. “I see it as an opportunity for us to get stronger. But you know, things are still moving around. It is a great time to be in college athletics and especially in college football. We had meetings these last two weeks on a college football playoff expansion standpoint. I believe in college football expansion but I think we have to be very methodical in the thought process....""

Big 10 commissioner talks about being in favor of expansion.

(10-04-2021 09:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://westvirginia.forums.rivals.com/t...nt.260846/

""...I think we are seeing some major shifts in college athletics from this summer,” Warren said during the broadcast of Friday night’s game between Iowa and Wisconsin. “I see it as an opportunity for us to get stronger. But you know, things are still moving around. It is a great time to be in college athletics and especially in college football. We had meetings these last two weeks on a college football playoff expansion standpoint. I believe in college football expansion but I think we have to be very methodical in the thought process....""

Big 10 commissioner talks about being in favor of expansion.

It's called crawfishing. Everything Warren and "the Alliance" leaders are doing is walking back their initial statement. They are not in such a hurry to postpone playoff expansion. They've already recanted blaming Sankey (at least Kliavkoff) and this hints at walking back on expansion. Attorneys for the NIL case, and now the NRLB got them moving backwards and accelerated their moonwalk in short shrift.

I'm telling you nothing about playoff expansion will happen until central issues that I laid out above are resolved.

(10-04-2021 06:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Until there is a format decided upon for pay for play and there is a known quantity of schools participating in it, and until we know who may unionize and who, if any may not, and until the current relationship, or lack thereof, with the NCAA is decided and we know if we have a breakaway upper tier or not, all of the hand wringing and wishful hopes for an expanded playoff is nothing more than click bait. You can't sign a contract for extended playoffs until there are clear decisions on the other matters. It's a nice distraction but the cart is still being placed before the horse. This will be a much easier issue to handle when we know where everyone stands and what business formats are, or are not, in place.

I could see a scenario where the conferences sign onto a 6+6 and pay-for-play re-/un-balances things. That'll be an issue for the next contract.

(10-04-2021 08:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 06:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 02:39 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 01:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  One problem I have in situations like this is that supporters of teams like Cincy, and the top G5 team generally, always focus on the perceived injustice of what is happening above them, but they take for granted that they belong ahead of teams below them. E.g., last year, there was a lot of gnashing of teeth about how Cincy was hitting a "glass ceiling" in the CFP and could not crack the top 4. But on the other hand, regarding the NY6 spot, Cincy was always well ahead of Coastal Carolina in the polls and CFP, despite Coastal having an arguably better resume than Cincy. But they didn't want to talk about that. They wanted to talk about why was a one-loss Texas AM or whoever ranked ahead of them.

I don’t disagree with the spirit of this, but, the bias is applied across all non-majors because you saw some sort of pecking order come out of it especially last year. Not just how Cincy couldn’t climb, but how Coastal needed to come from off the board and then slowly rise, too. I don’t disagree that a deck was stacked toward Cincy/AAC and that you saw it held against Coastal (and also SJSU?). It’s all wrong.

The bigger gripe should be toward how Iowa State climbed over so many others to get into position to get a playoff spot if it came to it, or how much help Ohio State got from everyone to keep a place, or how Oregon was bad, but good enough to grab a ranking so that you didn’t have an unranked AQ in the NY6. That’s the junk I think we’re seeing even now with Kentucky, OSU, and basically eveyone but Indiana, Rutgers, and Maryland in the Big Ten East.

But, I don’t disagree with there being a bias again. I think Coastal is a stud this year. Maybe better than last year. Both Cincy and Coastal could win out, and only Cincy will probably get the NY6 spot at best. Coastal’s hosed until there’s the establishment of top ranked AQ conference champs…but, the ceilings will still be in place for Sun Belt versus AAC or MWC heads up.

FWIW, I was mystified by how high Iowa State was ranked in the waning weeks of last year as well. That was a head-scratcher to me and IIRC I commented on it.

What shut me up was that they did go out and win the Fiesta Bowl over the PAC champ. Albeit a PAC champ that was like 3-2 or something.

That shouldn't have shut me up, because performance in a game doesn't mean you merited being in that game to begin with. But it did.

It was a screwy, virus year.

One of those losses was the 2nd game vs. OU. They split. ULL they lost early in the season. Then they lost by 3 to a good Okie St. squad on the road.

OK, but they also squeaked past TCU and Texas by 3 points each as well.

Overall, they were an 8-3 team and got an invite to an NY6 bowl game. That probably hasn't happened very often, but it did happen last year. It was a screwy year.

(10-05-2021 06:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 08:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 06:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 02:39 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 01:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  One problem I have in situations like this is that supporters of teams like Cincy, and the top G5 team generally, always focus on the perceived injustice of what is happening above them, but they take for granted that they belong ahead of teams below them. E.g., last year, there was a lot of gnashing of teeth about how Cincy was hitting a "glass ceiling" in the CFP and could not crack the top 4. But on the other hand, regarding the NY6 spot, Cincy was always well ahead of Coastal Carolina in the polls and CFP, despite Coastal having an arguably better resume than Cincy. But they didn't want to talk about that. They wanted to talk about why was a one-loss Texas AM or whoever ranked ahead of them.

I don’t disagree with the spirit of this, but, the bias is applied across all non-majors because you saw some sort of pecking order come out of it especially last year. Not just how Cincy couldn’t climb, but how Coastal needed to come from off the board and then slowly rise, too. I don’t disagree that a deck was stacked toward Cincy/AAC and that you saw it held against Coastal (and also SJSU?). It’s all wrong.

The bigger gripe should be toward how Iowa State climbed over so many others to get into position to get a playoff spot if it came to it, or how much help Ohio State got from everyone to keep a place, or how Oregon was bad, but good enough to grab a ranking so that you didn’t have an unranked AQ in the NY6. That’s the junk I think we’re seeing even now with Kentucky, OSU, and basically eveyone but Indiana, Rutgers, and Maryland in the Big Ten East.

But, I don’t disagree with there being a bias again. I think Coastal is a stud this year. Maybe better than last year. Both Cincy and Coastal could win out, and only Cincy will probably get the NY6 spot at best. Coastal’s hosed until there’s the establishment of top ranked AQ conference champs…but, the ceilings will still be in place for Sun Belt versus AAC or MWC heads up.

FWIW, I was mystified by how high Iowa State was ranked in the waning weeks of last year as well. That was a head-scratcher to me and IIRC I commented on it.

What shut me up was that they did go out and win the Fiesta Bowl over the PAC champ. Albeit a PAC champ that was like 3-2 or something.

That shouldn't have shut me up, because performance in a game doesn't mean you merited being in that game to begin with. But it did.

It was a screwy, virus year.

One of those losses was the 2nd game vs. OU. They split. ULL they lost early in the season. Then they lost by 3 to a good Okie St. squad on the road.

OK, but they also squeaked past TCU and Texas by 3 points each as well.

Overall, they were an 8-3 team and got an invite to an NY6 bowl game. That probably hasn't happened very often, but it did happen last year. It was a screwy year.

A very screwy year.

(10-04-2021 09:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 09:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://westvirginia.forums.rivals.com/t...nt.260846/

""...I think we are seeing some major shifts in college athletics from this summer,” Warren said during the broadcast of Friday night’s game between Iowa and Wisconsin. “I see it as an opportunity for us to get stronger. But you know, things are still moving around. It is a great time to be in college athletics and especially in college football. We had meetings these last two weeks on a college football playoff expansion standpoint. I believe in college football expansion but I think we have to be very methodical in the thought process....""

Big 10 commissioner talks about being in favor of expansion.

It's called crawfishing. Everything Warren and "the Alliance" leaders are doing is walking back their initial statement. They are not in such a hurry to postpone playoff expansion. ...

There's actually nothing in the statement about playoff expansion that contradicts a desire to bring playoff expansion to the market. Indeed, if Hancock says there's only months available to sort things out to expand before the end of the current contract, a "very methodical though process" is all that is required to push the expansion out to the end of the current contract.

(10-05-2021 07:40 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 09:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 09:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://westvirginia.forums.rivals.com/t...nt.260846/

""...I think we are seeing some major shifts in college athletics from this summer,” Warren said during the broadcast of Friday night’s game between Iowa and Wisconsin. “I see it as an opportunity for us to get stronger. But you know, things are still moving around. It is a great time to be in college athletics and especially in college football. We had meetings these last two weeks on a college football playoff expansion standpoint. I believe in college football expansion but I think we have to be very methodical in the thought process....""

Big 10 commissioner talks about being in favor of expansion.

It's called crawfishing. Everything Warren and "the Alliance" leaders are doing is walking back their initial statement. They are not in such a hurry to postpone playoff expansion. ...

There's actually nothing in the statement about playoff expansion that contradicts a desire to bring playoff expansion to the market. Indeed, if Hancock says there's only months available to sort things out to expand before the end of the current contract, a "very methodical though process" is all that is required to push the expansion out to the end of the current contract.

We'll see, but I think compliance has set in to try to stall a breakaway which will leave the alliance nothing to control. I think Warren, Phillips and Kliavkoff have realized that the only leverage they have is to give ESPN what they want so that ESPN puts the breaks on a breakaway.

You see if ESPN doesn't get what it wants a new upper tier beyond the NCAA still gives them what they want, and because it is of a substantively different nature than any modified amateur or NCAA controlled model, and is that way by way of compliance with the court mandates, it has legal precedent to render moot GOR's, which could easily impact all 3 alliance conferences and none so much as the ACC.

There is more going on than the slow playing of the current CFP contract.

https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2...ly-report/

Not sure if this got posted elsewhere:



"...Ralph D. Russo of the Associated Press reported there is more clarity around what members of the CFP’s management committee and other stakeholders are thinking after the management committee’s meeting in Illinois last week.

Those members and stakeholders spoke to Russo on condition of anonymity, but one source told him that “I’m confident we can” get to the original 12-team plan unveiled in June.


But Russo uncovered another reason why a 12-team playoff appears more likely than another plan. It has to do, of course, with TV money and the CFP’s current contract. Per Russo:

And then there is this: If the playoff expands to eight before the current contract with ESPN expires after the 2025 season, the network would be under no obligation to pay more for the new format than it already is for the current one. And why wait for a potentially huge windfall?

The reason? ESPN pays for a seven-game package already. That package includes the three ‘playoff’ games and the other four New Year’s Six games. So, an expansion to an eight-game playoff would fit into the current structure, which is great — unless you’re trying to make more money. And one has to assume the CFP would be seeking to make more money than the $600 million per year that ESPN pays now...."

(10-11-2021 06:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2...ly-report/

Not sure if this got posted elsewhere:



"...Ralph D. Russo of the Associated Press reported there is more clarity around what members of the CFP’s management committee and other stakeholders are thinking after the management committee’s meeting in Illinois last week.

Those members and stakeholders spoke to Russo on condition of anonymity, but one source told him that “I’m confident we can” get to the original 12-team plan unveiled in June.


But Russo uncovered another reason why a 12-team playoff appears more likely than another plan. It has to do, of course, with TV money and the CFP’s current contract. Per Russo:

And then there is this: If the playoff expands to eight before the current contract with ESPN expires after the 2025 season, the network would be under no obligation to pay more for the new format than it already is for the current one. And why wait for a potentially huge windfall?

The reason? ESPN pays for a seven-game package already. That package includes the three ‘playoff’ games and the other four New Year’s Six games. So, an expansion to an eight-game playoff would fit into the current structure, which is great — unless you’re trying to make more money. And one has to assume the CFP would be seeking to make more money than the $600 million per year that ESPN pays now...."

IMO, the B1G is the key. Once they get over their bruised feelings that OU and TX knocked on the SEC's door and not their door, they will see the advantage of a 12-team playoff and then we will be good to go on that.

(10-12-2021 08:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-11-2021 06:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2...ly-report/

Not sure if this got posted elsewhere:



"...Ralph D. Russo of the Associated Press reported there is more clarity around what members of the CFP’s management committee and other stakeholders are thinking after the management committee’s meeting in Illinois last week.

Those members and stakeholders spoke to Russo on condition of anonymity, but one source told him that “I’m confident we can” get to the original 12-team plan unveiled in June.


But Russo uncovered another reason why a 12-team playoff appears more likely than another plan. It has to do, of course, with TV money and the CFP’s current contract. Per Russo:

And then there is this: If the playoff expands to eight before the current contract with ESPN expires after the 2025 season, the network would be under no obligation to pay more for the new format than it already is for the current one. And why wait for a potentially huge windfall?

The reason? ESPN pays for a seven-game package already. That package includes the three ‘playoff’ games and the other four New Year’s Six games. So, an expansion to an eight-game playoff would fit into the current structure, which is great — unless you’re trying to make more money. And one has to assume the CFP would be seeking to make more money than the $600 million per year that ESPN pays now...."

IMO, the B1G is the key. Once they get over their bruised feelings that OU and TX knocked on the SEC's door and not their door, they will see the advantage of a 12-team playoff and then we will be good to go on that.

I'll repeat the optimism that I've had elsewhere: I think that this is going to get done by the end of the year and, if anything, we may see the new CFP start in 2023.

We've seen estimates that CFP expansion could more than triple the current playoff revenue. This means moving from around $600 million per year (the current CFP TV contract plus all of the individual contract bowl agreements) to $1.8 billion per year with just a conservative estimate. To put that into perspective, an extra $1.2 billion per year (I'm just talking about the difference compared to the current contract by itself and not even the total) would be 50% more than the NCAA Tournament TV contract! The new CFP would be the equivalent of getting an extra 1.5 years of NCAA Tournament money every freaking year and split amongst a much smaller group of schools!

If the parties can agree to start the expanded CFP in 2024 in lieu of the last 2 years of the current contract, that's a delta of $2.4 billion extra dollars on the low end compared to the current CFP contract. If the parties can actually get a new playoff into place for 2023 (which was suggested in some articles this weekend), that's a delta of $3.6 billion extra dollars compared to the current deal.

We spend pages and pages here talking about schools moving conferences and leaving long-time rivals for a few million dollars at the P5 level and, in many cases, less than a million dollars at the lower levels. Schools and leagues spend tons of resources on studies and consultants on how the maximize their respective positions in conference realignment.

Yet, are we really supposed to believe that the powers that be are going to just leave potentially $3.6 billion (and maybe even more) on the table? It's not just a matter of waiting for the current contract to end to seek higher bids because that would mean that the new contract would have to incorporate an additional $3.6 billion plus interest in order to cover the opportunity cost of those lost extra playoff years to make everyone whole.

Call me crazy, but when *billions* of extra dollars are at stake, I'd call that a motivating factor for everyone. I don't care what concerns there might be for NIL compensation or pay for play for athletes - if you've got *billions* of extra dollars coming in, then every school and conference everywhere will happily deal with that "problem" on their end. This will get done by the end of the year - it would be an insane breach of the fiduciary financial responsibilities of everyone involved if this fails to pass.

(10-12-2021 12:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  ... We've seen estimates that CFP expansion could more than triple the current playoff revenue. This means moving from around $600 million per year (the current CFP TV contract plus all of the individual contract bowl agreements) to $1.8 billion per year with just a conservative estimate. ...

... though the reporting of triple the current playoff revenue was not unambiguous that it was referring to triple the current CFP TV contract plus all the individual contract bowl agreements ... it also could be read as triple the CFP TV contract itself.

So the conservative estimate would be the +$1.2b below.

And if that is an estimate based on increase in media value, it still leaves it up in the air whether a contract extension will deliver as much of the increase in media value to the participating conferences as taking the CFP12 to the market will. It only requires one Major 4 conference to be of the view that taking it to the market is likely to boost conference revenues by 10%+ per year to justify taking it to the market in their view ... and since contract extension needs all parties to sign on, one Major 4 conference with that view is all it takes.

Quote: To put that into perspective, an extra $1.2 billion per year (I'm just talking about the difference compared to the current contract by itself and not even the total) would be 50% more than the NCAA Tournament TV contract! The new CFP would be the equivalent of getting an extra 1.5 years of NCAA Tournament money every freaking year and split amongst a much smaller group of schools!

If the parties can agree to start the expanded CFP in 2024 in lieu of the last 2 years of the current contract, that's a delta of $2.4 billion extra dollars on the low end compared to the current CFP contract. If the parties can actually get a new playoff into place for 2023 (which was suggested in some articles this weekend), that's a delta of $3.6 billion extra dollars compared to the current deal.

We spend pages and pages here talking about schools moving conferences and leaving long-time rivals for a few million dollars at the P5 level and, in many cases, less than a million dollars at the lower levels. Schools and leagues spend tons of resources on studies and consultants on how the maximize their respective positions in conference realignment.

Yet, are we really supposed to believe that the powers that be are going to just leave potentially $3.6 billion (and maybe even more) on the table? It's not just a matter of waiting for the current contract to end to seek higher bids because that would mean that the new contract would have to incorporate an additional $3.6 billion plus interest in order to cover the opportunity cost of those lost extra playoff years to make everyone whole.

However, it should also be noted that if the Alliance is negotiating modifications to the CFP12 proposal that are more to their liking, "we are eager to get this started as fast as possible, but we have some suggestions for changes" is not the strongest bargaining position to take. "At this point, we prefer to take the CFP12 to the market, but we are willing to discuss changes that might change our minds" seems like a plausible bargaining position.

(10-12-2021 12:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 08:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-11-2021 06:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2...ly-report/

Not sure if this got posted elsewhere:



"...Ralph D. Russo of the Associated Press reported there is more clarity around what members of the CFP’s management committee and other stakeholders are thinking after the management committee’s meeting in Illinois last week.

Those members and stakeholders spoke to Russo on condition of anonymity, but one source told him that “I’m confident we can” get to the original 12-team plan unveiled in June.


But Russo uncovered another reason why a 12-team playoff appears more likely than another plan. It has to do, of course, with TV money and the CFP’s current contract. Per Russo:

And then there is this: If the playoff expands to eight before the current contract with ESPN expires after the 2025 season, the network would be under no obligation to pay more for the new format than it already is for the current one. And why wait for a potentially huge windfall?

The reason? ESPN pays for a seven-game package already. That package includes the three ‘playoff’ games and the other four New Year’s Six games. So, an expansion to an eight-game playoff would fit into the current structure, which is great — unless you’re trying to make more money. And one has to assume the CFP would be seeking to make more money than the $600 million per year that ESPN pays now...."

IMO, the B1G is the key. Once they get over their bruised feelings that OU and TX knocked on the SEC's door and not their door, they will see the advantage of a 12-team playoff and then we will be good to go on that.

I'll repeat the optimism that I've had elsewhere: I think that this is going to get done by the end of the year and, if anything, we may see the new CFP start in 2023.

We've seen estimates that CFP expansion could more than triple the current playoff revenue. This means moving from around $600 million per year (the current CFP TV contract plus all of the individual contract bowl agreements) to $1.8 billion per year with just a conservative estimate. To put that into perspective, an extra $1.2 billion per year (I'm just talking about the difference compared to the current contract by itself and not even the total) would be 50% more than the NCAA Tournament TV contract! The new CFP would be the equivalent of getting an extra 1.5 years of NCAA Tournament money every freaking year and split amongst a much smaller group of schools!

If the parties can agree to start the expanded CFP in 2024 in lieu of the last 2 years of the current contract, that's a delta of $2.4 billion extra dollars on the low end compared to the current CFP contract. If the parties can actually get a new playoff into place for 2023 (which was suggested in some articles this weekend), that's a delta of $3.6 billion extra dollars compared to the current deal.

We spend pages and pages here talking about schools moving conferences and leaving long-time rivals for a few million dollars at the P5 level and, in many cases, less than a million dollars at the lower levels. Schools and leagues spend tons of resources on studies and consultants on how the maximize their respective positions in conference realignment.

Yet, are we really supposed to believe that the powers that be are going to just leave potentially $3.6 billion (and maybe even more) on the table? It's not just a matter of waiting for the current contract to end to seek higher bids because that would mean that the new contract would have to incorporate an additional $3.6 billion plus interest in order to cover the opportunity cost of those lost extra playoff years to make everyone whole.

Call me crazy, but when *billions* of extra dollars are at stake, I'd call that a motivating factor for everyone. I don't care what concerns there might be for NIL compensation or pay for play for athletes - if you've got *billions* of extra dollars coming in, then every school and conference everywhere will happily deal with that "problem" on their end. This will get done by the end of the year - it would be an insane breach of the fiduciary financial responsibilities of everyone involved if this fails to pass.

If it triples, that will be about $120 million extra a year for each P5 conference.

(10-04-2021 05:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  Iowa St. deserved their spot. There is also a bias against no name P5s like Iowa St. and Kentucky.

Totally agree.

The media loves the AAC over the MWC too.

(10-12-2021 12:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Call me crazy, but when *billions* of extra dollars are at stake, I'd call that a motivating factor for everyone. I don't care what concerns there might be for NIL compensation or pay for play for athletes - if you've got *billions* of extra dollars coming in, then every school and conference everywhere will happily deal with that "problem" on their end. This will get done by the end of the year - it would be an insane breach of the fiduciary financial responsibilities of everyone involved if this fails to pass.

But, incalculable amounts of money has been left on the table for decades now. Same amount of responsibilities. No action. No real consequences from respective state houses or from DC. If it wasn’t for SCOTUS and NIL on this pass, what has really changed?

I want to see the change, but, I don’t know how hurdles such as network arrangements, conference demands, and bowls are all resolved. Quite honestly, given what higher ed is facing with funding, Covid-related ailments, and the imposition and oversight of NIL, the amount of work this stuff demands from college presidents alone is almost irresponsible at this moment. There exists a playoff structure and it has an endpoint, though a few more years down the line. It can wait, I imagine, because it has been for most of my life.

I also think some of the slowdown of this is also figuring out how to ensure power conference presence in the new model and figuring out a way to squeeze out non-majors. Sorry, I don’t trust this system. Non-major representation is a wish-list item at best, and I bet, 8, 10, or 12 model, the little guys are still left out.

(10-13-2021 06:51 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I also think some of the slowdown of this is also figuring out how to ensure power conference presence in the new model and figuring out a way to squeeze out non-majors. Sorry, I don’t trust this system. Non-major representation is a wish-list item at best, and I bet, 8, 10, or 12 model, the little guys are still left out.

Though the primary purpose of the non-major "inclusion" is to guarantee Major inclusion when the system is set up without the exposure to anti-trust challenges that go with singling out specific conferences ... and of course, since Conference Presidents dislike uncertainty, for the major conferences where the uncertainty of falling below the top six champions is less than the uncertainty of being open to anti-trust challenges, the 6/6 structure is to be preferred.

Now, part of the slowdown may indeed be how to structure the payouts so that an appropriate headline number can be stated for the non Majors while still delivering the lion's share to the Majors.

Enjoy reading the insight shared here.