(06-12-2021 02:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 11:36 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  So word has come out about a proposed change in the format for the CFP. If you haven't read about them then go to the threads in the general board.

Let's get the obvious out of the way: Notre Dame secures its position as an independent. No ifs, ands or buts.

So let's talk what happens to the conferences with this change. A lot of complaints from the G5 have focused on the access to the playoff spots. I think so much energy has been spent on ensuring that they get a real shot at reaching the playoffs that they've overlooked the main thing that has created the supposed separation in the first place: the regular season games.

Sure, an occasional upset would create additional interest in a given program that won that particular game. With that said, the greater interest is generated when big-name programs meet on the field. With an exception of a few, programs would prefer to be associated with big-name programs than programs of a similar brand value. That's why Iowa State doesn't mind play Oklahoma every year and the likes of Minnesota and Purdue want to play Ohio State every other year. Etcetera, etcetera.

Should this proposed format be adopted there would be some flattening of the conference hierarchy in that as G and lower-level P conferences get more shots to enter the playoffs the longer they stay in the conversation. Logic would tell me that this flattening would be offset elsewhere.

That elsewhere may well be realignment. But here is where it gets murky. It seems that there's a lot of enthusiasm among commissioners for this proposal. Commissioners don't usually volunteer their jobs away. If there's enthusiasm from commissioners then, chances are, there's positive feedback from the programs they represent.

An adoption of the playoff format may be a sign that presidents are generally inclined to favor status quo, provided that resources can be secured. Granted, we still don't know how NIL and changes in stipend rules would play out in the real world.

If I have to guess right now then status quo is the more likely outcome.

It is an emergency rush job by ESPN to hold onto contracted rights. The money mentioned is 2 billion or roughly a touch over 4 times the revenue of the CFP.

The risk to ESPN is not NIL, but the stipend ruling. If stipend caps are removed or significantly raised and a member, or members, of a conference choose to opt out they will do so without penalty because their initial contract will have been significantly altered by court ruling. Those departures will open existing contracts, including GOR's. This also opens matters for schools in conferences that would have a school opt out.

So ESPN is using the expansion and a lucrative contract to do two things:
1. Make staying even with pay for play so attractive that a Vandy, Wake, or NW wouldn't consider stepping down.
2. To get a new lengthy CFP contract signed before a new one comes up for bid and use the COVID losses as motivation to sign a lucrative deal early.

Rush job....yes
emergency? let's just say that ESPN is taking advantage of their current situation and betting on the political influence of the P5 schools for a positive outcome.
This way they are not to blame if the Big 12 happens to dissolve because Oklahoma decides to look for a bigger pay day.