(08-13-2021 09:31 AM)usffan Wrote:  

USFFan

(08-13-2021 10:11 AM)Crayton Wrote:  That’s great. Thanks!

#1 is interesting; they want an annual quarterfinal game (no second-tier stuff) but would prefer NOT splitting that money with the other QFs.

#2 is hard to parse. Sounds like they merely want to ensure they get EITHER a Big Ten or Pac-12 team and are not now pushing for 1 of each when available.

#3 is also a little ambiguous. They want “most favored” status for ALSO hosting semifinals and national championships. Not sure any bowl will host two rounds, unless they anticipate a double-hosting model where 2 teams don’t travel between QFs and SFs.

#4 keeping their historic NYD time slot, as expected.

Sounds like Rose Bowl Plan A is hosting both a NYD quarterfinal AND a later (annual or semi-annual) semifinal that will be sold as a separate TV package.

(08-13-2021 09:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  I'd love to see the Right of First Refusal clause in the existing contract that he refers to. Is that online somewhere?

(08-13-2021 10:17 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 10:11 AM)Crayton Wrote:  That’s great. Thanks!

#1 is interesting; they want an annual quarterfinal game (no second-tier stuff) but would prefer NOT splitting that money with the other QFs.

#2 is hard to parse. Sounds like they merely want to ensure they get EITHER a Big Ten or Pac-12 team and are not now pushing for 1 of each when available.

#3 is also a little ambiguous. They want “most favored” status for ALSO hosting semifinals and national championships. Not sure any bowl will host two rounds, unless they anticipate a double-hosting model where 2 teams don’t travel between QFs and SFs.

#4 keeping their historic NYD time slot, as expected.

Sounds like Rose Bowl Plan A is hosting both a NYD quarterfinal AND a later (annual or semi-annual) semifinal that will be sold as a separate TV package.

I'd rather see it done where the winners in the semi-finals don't travel for the finals.

Two games on Saturday to determine the finalists. Then a week at the same site to prep for the final game the next weekend.

That would make a hell of a media event.

(08-13-2021 10:11 AM)Crayton Wrote:  That’s great. Thanks!

#1 is interesting; they want an annual quarterfinal game (no second-tier stuff) but would prefer NOT splitting that money with the other QFs.

#2 is hard to parse. Sounds like they merely want to ensure they get EITHER a Big Ten or Pac-12 team and are not now pushing for 1 of each when available.

Quote: #3 is also a little ambiguous. They want “most favored” status for ALSO hosting semifinals and national championships. Not sure any bowl will host two rounds, unless they anticipate a double-hosting model where 2 teams don’t travel between QFs and SFs.

Quote: #4 keeping their historic NYD time slot, as expected.

Sounds like Rose Bowl Plan A is hosting both a NYD quarterfinal AND a later (annual or semi-annual) semifinal that will be sold as a separate TV package.

(08-13-2021 10:19 AM)Crayton Wrote:  The Rose Bowl wants to make sure they have a seat at the table and are not put in a position where they choose between having few of their 4 objectives met or withdrawing completely from the playoff. At least until 2026 (when the contract including the “right of first refusal” language expires), the Rose Bowl can’t be put into that type of situation.

(08-13-2021 10:18 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  3 and 4 are the biggest stumbling blocks.

3) If they want the SF or Championship game on a rotating basis, it will not be the Rose Bowl game on Jan 1st. It will be a separate game.

4) They will not get a QF on NYD most years given the way the calendar plays out (to avoid NFL games and subsequent weeknight SFs).

So I expect the rest of college football to tell the Rose to piss off and host 3rd and 4th place teams instead on non-QF years. Otherwise the 12-team proposal is getting tabled, but I don't see that happening (it may go to 8 teams but same calendar conflicts are still likely).

(08-13-2021 10:32 AM)Crayton Wrote:  If the Rose doesn’t budge the conferences are not going to table expansion. They’ll either accommodate or find another bowl. It may be for a shorter contract period to give the Rose opportunity to loosen their stance, but it won’t shelve the whole project.

(08-13-2021 10:18 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  3 and 4 are the biggest stumbling blocks.

3) If they want the SF or Championship game on a rotating basis, it will not be the Rose Bowl game on Jan 1st. It will be a separate game.

4) They will not get a QF on NYD most years given the way the calendar plays out (to avoid NFL games and subsequent weeknight SFs).

So I expect the rest of college football to tell the Rose to piss off and host 3rd and 4th place teams instead on non-QF years. Otherwise the 12-team proposal is getting tabled, but I don't see that happening (it may go to 8 teams, but same calendar conflicts are still likely).

(08-13-2021 10:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The "Rose Bowl" name has tremendous value. It's one of the few things about college football that almost the whole country knows. I bet more people have heard of the Rose Bowl than have heard of the CFP.

The CFP would be foolish to throw that value away. IMO, the Rose Bowl should be accommodated to the greatest extent possible so that it still shines within the context of the expanded playoffs, as it does in the current CFP.

Ditto for the Sugar, Orange and Cotton Bowls.

(08-13-2021 10:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  If there's one thing I'd wager on happening here in whatever playoff system that we end up with, it's that there WILL 100% be multiple quarterfinals on NYD every year (with the only exception when NYD is on a Sunday) come hell or high water... and in that case, it makes total sense that the Rose would be a permanent quarterfinal (especially if only one of the Big Ten or Pac-12 champs are participating, meaning that the Rose is now much more wide open to other leagues).

I know that you've made this argument before, but the TV networks unambiguously do not care if the semifinal games are on weeknights. In fact, that's a feature (not a bug) to them for maximum ratings value. At the same time, it's clear that playoff games on NYD itself have much larger ratings than when they are on a non-NYD Saturday as we have seen through the CFP era, which means that having as many quarterfinals as possible on NYD is also key for maximum ratings value. Everyone should be prepared for this here.

I mean, the committee that created the 12-team playoff proposal made it clear that "taking back New Year's Day" was a goal of the expanded playoff and that committee didn't even include the Big Ten and Pac-12 that would consider "taking back New Year's Day" to be even more important than the rest of them! When what the committee is saying (taking back NYD) also aligns with what would make everyone the most money, *those* are the times when I take the powers that be at their word. (It's only when the powers that be start throwing out lines like "student welfare" as a priority that we know that they're being hypocritical.)

(08-13-2021 10:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Agree on #3. That directly conflicts with their desire to be on NYD.

Totally disagree on #4. I think that's the most likely scenario of them all. If there's one thing I'd wager on happening here in whatever playoff system that we end up with, it's that there WILL 100% be multiple quarterfinals on NYD every year (with the only exception when NYD is on a Sunday) come hell or high water... and in that case, it makes total sense that the Rose would be a permanent quarterfinal (especially if only one of the Big Ten or Pac-12 champs are participating, meaning that the Rose is now much more wide open to other leagues).

I know that you've made this argument before, but the TV networks unambiguously do not care if the semifinal games are on weeknights. In fact, that's a feature (not a bug) to them for maximum ratings value. At the same time, it's clear that playoff games on NYD itself have much larger ratings than when they are on a non-NYD Saturday as we have seen through the CFP era, which means that having as many quarterfinals as possible on NYD is also key for maximum ratings value. Everyone should be prepared for this here.

I mean, the committee that created the 12-team playoff proposal made it clear that "taking back New Year's Day" was a goal of the expanded playoff and that committee didn't even include the Big Ten and Pac-12 that would consider "taking back New Year's Day" to be even more important than the rest of them! When what the committee is saying (taking back NYD) also aligns with what would make everyone the most money, *those* are the times when I take the powers that be at their word. (It's only when the powers that be start throwing out lines like "student welfare" as a priority that we know that they're being hypocritical.)

(08-13-2021 11:07 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 10:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Agree on #3. That directly conflicts with their desire to be on NYD.

Totally disagree on #4. I think that's the most likely scenario of them all. If there's one thing I'd wager on happening here in whatever playoff system that we end up with, it's that there WILL 100% be multiple quarterfinals on NYD every year (with the only exception when NYD is on a Sunday) come hell or high water... and in that case, it makes total sense that the Rose would be a permanent quarterfinal (especially if only one of the Big Ten or Pac-12 champs are participating, meaning that the Rose is now much more wide open to other leagues).

I know that you've made this argument before, but the TV networks unambiguously do not care if the semifinal games are on weeknights. In fact, that's a feature (not a bug) to them for maximum ratings value. At the same time, it's clear that playoff games on NYD itself have much larger ratings than when they are on a non-NYD Saturday as we have seen through the CFP era, which means that having as many quarterfinals as possible on NYD is also key for maximum ratings value. Everyone should be prepared for this here.

I mean, the committee that created the 12-team playoff proposal made it clear that "taking back New Year's Day" was a goal of the expanded playoff and that committee didn't even include the Big Ten and Pac-12 that would consider "taking back New Year's Day" to be even more important than the rest of them! When what the committee is saying (taking back NYD) also aligns with what would make everyone the most money, *those* are the times when I take the powers that be at their word. (It's only when the powers that be start throwing out lines like "student welfare" as a priority that we know that they're being hypocritical.)

You might be right Frank. I mean, the NCAA tournament could care less about filling the building, especially in earlier rounds. However, when it comes down to the marquee event, it is on a Saturday afternoon in a huge venue. The Final Four is packed. It's not just a TV placeholder to grab ratings. Otherwise the games would be played on a Wednesday/Thursday.

If sports have really moved on to this streaming model, where all anyone cares about is the rectangle on the screen where all the action is taking place, and the aesthetics or fan support is no longer valued, then you will be absolutely right about this.

But it doesn't make any sense to me from either angle. The marquee event here is probably the QFs. You probably want 3/4 games on NYD. But not to make the SFs some made for TV event for mercenary CFB brands to showcase the sport at its highest level. They will not do that on two separate weeknights... we shall see.