http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ly-returns

What this shows is how much power the Rose Bowl and thereby the Pac and Big 10 have (had) in the BCS and now the Playoff process. It is this type of hold the Rose has that the playoff won't expand past 4 teams...in addition to other factors.

Absolutely correct.

The future of the playoff is to stay at 4 teams, with autobids to each P4. (an exception for Notre Dame, obviously will exist)

The defacto expansion is considering the four CCG's as the quarter-final round. Which they would be, with auto-bids.

Bowlsby has the money quote (literally) in this Q&A:

Quote:[Weaving the playoff into six bowls] is not the most lucrative model. The more lucrative model would be three stand-alone games [not necessarily in bowls] or seven stand-alone games.

They all know that giving the bowls a piece of the playoff pie is just a big waste of money.

The next step is figuring out the political maneuvering required to cut the cord with the bowls so that the schools get more of the playoff money.

(11-03-2015 03:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Bowlsby has the money quote (literally) in this Q&A:

Quote:[Weaving the playoff into six bowls] is not the most lucrative model. The more lucrative model would be three stand-alone games [not necessarily in bowls] or seven stand-alone games.

They all know that giving the bowls a piece of the playoff pie is just a big waste of money.

The next step is figuring out the political maneuvering required to cut the cord with the bowls so that the schools get more of the playoff money.

A 7 game model all stand alone would be a killer for the bowls. At least the major ones.

(11-03-2015 03:21 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(11-03-2015 03:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Bowlsby has the money quote (literally) in this Q&A:

Quote:[Weaving the playoff into six bowls] is not the most lucrative model. The more lucrative model would be three stand-alone games [not necessarily in bowls] or seven stand-alone games.

They all know that giving the bowls a piece of the playoff pie is just a big waste of money.

The next step is figuring out the political maneuvering required to cut the cord with the bowls so that the schools get more of the playoff money.

A 7 game model all stand alone would be a killer for the bowls. At least the major ones.

There is still a good relationship between the major bowls and the Power conferences, which is why I know don't think they move past 4. I don't think they want to have the bowl less FCS playoff model. At least the Rose, PAC and B1G don't.

(11-03-2015 03:24 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(11-03-2015 03:21 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(11-03-2015 03:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Bowlsby has the money quote (literally) in this Q&A:

Quote:[Weaving the playoff into six bowls] is not the most lucrative model. The more lucrative model would be three stand-alone games [not necessarily in bowls] or seven stand-alone games.

They all know that giving the bowls a piece of the playoff pie is just a big waste of money.

The next step is figuring out the political maneuvering required to cut the cord with the bowls so that the schools get more of the playoff money.

A 7 game model all stand alone would be a killer for the bowls. At least the major ones.

There is still a good relationship between the major bowls and the Power conferences, which is why I know don't think they move past 4. I don't think they want to have the bowl less FCS playoff model. At least the Rose, PAC and B1G don't.

If you look at conference commissioner comments on these things, including the one linked by the OP, you'll notice that Delany often says things like "the 70-year relationship we've had with the Rose Bowl" but Scott doesn't. I don't think the Pac-12 is in the Rose Bowl über alles camp. And for all we know, the Big Ten might not be there either after Delany retires.

^^^ The Rose Bowl is still a big deal with B10 fans. Up until the BCS era, the most important thing to a B10 fan was to get a Rose Bowl birth. In today's climate it has been supplanted by the playoffs, but getting to the Rose Bowl is the next best thing.

I agree the Big Ten cares more about the Rose Bowl than the PAC-12. I hope both always do.

(11-03-2015 03:58 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I agree the Big Ten cares more about the Rose Bowl than the PAC-12. I hope both always do.

Even if Scott doesn't make any supportive statements, we know the PAC presidents and fans care quite a bit about the Rose Bowl. After all, the Rose Bowl is an important part for the Los Angeles area because it coordinates with the Rose Parade in addition to USC/UCLA who are the historical powers of the PAC.

(11-03-2015 03:58 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I agree the Big Ten cares more about the Rose Bowl than the PAC-12. I hope both always do.

Eh... I don't know if that's actually true. Larry Scott doesn't have the long history of working in college sports in the same way as the other P5 commissioners, so he (in his own personal capacity) might not be as wedded to the Rose Bowl, but I wouldn't apply that to the Pac-12 presidents overall. From a pure financial standpoint, the Pac-12 needs the Rose Bowl much more than the Big Ten. The Pac-12 actually has the weakest bowl lineup of the P5 once you get past the Rose Bowl. Without the Rose Bowl, the Pac-12 would have a worse top bowl deal than the ACC (which is the lowest paid right now). In contrast, any of the other New Year's Six bowls would pay top dollar for the top Big Ten tie-in.

(11-03-2015 03:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Bowlsby has the money quote (literally) in this Q&A:

Quote:[Weaving the playoff into six bowls] is not the most lucrative model. The more lucrative model would be three stand-alone games [not necessarily in bowls] or seven stand-alone games.

They all know that giving the bowls a piece of the playoff pie is just a big waste of money.

The next step is figuring out the political maneuvering required to cut the cord with the bowls so that the schools get more of the playoff money.

Three neutral site, bid-out games would work well.

Then the bowls retain their traditional, conference tie-ins:
- Rose Bowl should be the B1G #1 or #2 (if #1 makes the playoff) vs. PAC #1 or #2 (if #1 makes the playoff), every year.
- Orange Bowl should be the ACC #1 or #2, every year.
- Sugar Bowl should be the SEC #1 or #2, every year.

Seven (or five ... as some people talk about a six team playoff) is off the table. And that's not my opinion, you heard it from the horses' mouths in the article. Sorry

As I have said time and time again, and only saying again since it is relevant to what was revealed, the six game playoff Will be the compromise. The two talking points have for the most part been 4 games or 8 games. Six games will be the compromise.

(11-03-2015 02:52 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ly-returns

What this shows is how much power the Rose Bowl and thereby the Pac and Big 10 have (had) in the BCS and now the Playoff process. It is this type of hold the Rose has that the playoff won't expand past 4 teams...in addition to other factors.

Simple way around that. Big 10/Pac 12 in quarterfinal in Rose Bowl.

The more difficult thing is a) ignoring the bowls and playing the first round in home sites in December; or b) working around the NFL in January fitting the semi-finals in. Bowlsby mentioned the scheduling difficulty.

(11-03-2015 03:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-03-2015 03:24 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(11-03-2015 03:21 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(11-03-2015 03:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Bowlsby has the money quote (literally) in this Q&A:

Quote:[Weaving the playoff into six bowls] is not the most lucrative model. The more lucrative model would be three stand-alone games [not necessarily in bowls] or seven stand-alone games.

They all know that giving the bowls a piece of the playoff pie is just a big waste of money.

The next step is figuring out the political maneuvering required to cut the cord with the bowls so that the schools get more of the playoff money.

A 7 game model all stand alone would be a killer for the bowls. At least the major ones.

There is still a good relationship between the major bowls and the Power conferences, which is why I know don't think they move past 4. I don't think they want to have the bowl less FCS playoff model. At least the Rose, PAC and B1G don't.

If you look at conference commissioner comments on these things, including the one linked by the OP, you'll notice that Delany often says things like "the 70-year relationship we've had with the Rose Bowl" but Scott doesn't. I don't think the Pac-12 is in the Rose Bowl über alles camp. And for all we know, the Big Ten might not be there either after Delany retires.

The Big 12 and SEC own the Sugar Bowl. The Sugar Bowl is just a contractor at this point. Cotton and Peach are happy to be there. Fiesta is happy to still be there. Don't think the Orange is much of a barrier at this point. Its just the Rose.

(11-03-2015 06:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  As I have said time and time again, and only saying again since it is relevant to what was revealed, the six game playoff Will be the compromise. The two talking points have for the most part been 4 games or 8 games. Six games will be the compromise.

It doesn't solve any of the issues with going beyond 4 and creates new ones.

(11-03-2015 03:58 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I agree the Big Ten cares more about the Rose Bowl than the PAC-12. I hope both always do.

Too bad the rose bowl doesn't go back to Pac v big 10 so no one would care about it again

(11-03-2015 06:29 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(11-03-2015 03:58 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I agree the Big Ten cares more about the Rose Bowl than the PAC-12. I hope both always do.

Too bad the rose bowl doesn't go back to Pac v big 10 so no one would care about it again

You mean the two conferences that played for the national title last year?

(11-03-2015 06:29 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(11-03-2015 03:58 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I agree the Big Ten cares more about the Rose Bowl than the PAC-12. I hope both always do.

Too bad the rose bowl doesn't go back to Pac v big 10 so no one would care about it again

Just the north and the west and now the northeast.

We have more population than the south and vastly more money/less rural poverty.

(11-03-2015 06:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-03-2015 06:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  As I have said time and time again, and only saying again since it is relevant to what was revealed, the six game playoff Will be the compromise. The two talking points have for the most part been 4 games or 8 games. Six games will be the compromise.

It doesn't solve any of the issues with going beyond 4 and creates new ones.

Yep.

I don't recall H1 talking six teams until relatively recently. He was one of the P4/4 team guys for quite a while. Not sure why he switched.

Regardless, he switched to the wrong side. Commissioners just slammed the door shut on more than four teams.

(11-03-2015 06:40 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-03-2015 06:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-03-2015 06:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  As I have said time and time again, and only saying again since it is relevant to what was revealed, the six game playoff Will be the compromise. The two talking points have for the most part been 4 games or 8 games. Six games will be the compromise.

It doesn't solve any of the issues with going beyond 4 and creates new ones.

Yep.

I don't recall H1 talking six teams until relatively recently. He was one of the P4/4 team guys for quite a while. Not sure why he switched.

Regardless, he switched to the wrong side. Commissioners just slammed the door shut on more than four teams.

No, actually I wasn't. Sorry, you are not my biographer.

As if the Commissioners have NEVER said something that they went back on later.

Sheep.