Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Bowl Affiliation in New 12-Team Format
Author Message
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 16,247
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 1202
I Root For: Olde Ironclad
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #61
RE: Bowl Affiliation in New 12-Team Format
(06-18-2021 11:23 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(06-18-2021 09:53 PM)esayem Wrote:  The Sugar, Peach, and arguably the Orange are all in SEC territory, so I don’t see any reason the SEC would object to the Sugar hosting a semi every three or four years. They legitimately have the best setup of any power conference with half the bowl sites being in their neck of the woods. The Peach does serve better as a semi as long as their CCG is played in ATL. Of course, they could always move that to Jacksonville or better yet, Birmingham!! I kid, but Tampa wouldn’t be bad.

So if they let the QF bowls be a conduit for more money, the question would be which bowl could and would channel more money.

There are three countervailing factors. One upside is that large live audiences continue to become more scarce, increasing the relative value of the remaining ones to advertisers. The other upside is that they would be hosting championship knockout games, so everything else equal that is a larger audience. One downside is that under the new structure, there is less guarantee about the match-up, so regionally focused money may not grow in proportion to overall money in the system.

The two ways they can get more regional certainty is to have a contract to host a conference champion if they should be a top four conference champion, or to have contracts with two conferences to host the highest seeded of the two. The first gives a conference region to target, but the risk that conference champion is not top four, the second gives two conference regions to target, but substantial uncertainty how often any given region will be represented.

There is in any event more uncertainty for the three current Contract Bowls no matter what they do, and with greater uncertainty comes a need for a higher expected surplus for the bowl committee, to cover the risk. This is a big reason why I expect the relative balance between Bowl revenue and CFP media contract revenue will shift toward the latter.

And then the different bowls have different levels of financial strength and different abilities to pay.

With the college football audience trending older, I expect the fading bloom of a Rose Bowl bid in Big Ten country, now that it only hosts the champion when fails to reach the season goal of a CFP bid, hasn't faded as much as some people may thing, and if it is placed in the championship path again, that will instantly freshen the bloom. And the fall back of being a "home" PAC-12 bowl when not a Big Ten bowl seems like it would be a strong appeal to the Rose Bowl, which is why I continue to think "best of Big Ten or PAC-12" contracts are likely the Rose Bowl's preference, and therefore the contract package that they will pay they most for, in terms of bowl payout.

AFAICT, the Sugar Bowl has the second deepest pockets, and the greatest certainty for the Sugar Bowl is an exclusive contract to host the SEC champion if a top seed. Over the likely life of the contract, that is the single conference champion with the lowest risk of falling out of the top four champions.

AFAICT, the Orange Bowl has the third deepest pockets, and given that the Sugar Bowl would win a bidding war for the SEC champion it won't enter that bidding war but would instead go for its second preference, the ACC champion.

That leaves the Peach Bowl as a semi-final bowl and the Fiesta Bowl and Cotton Bowl in a bidding war for the BigXII. Don't ask me which of those two would win the bidding war, I don't have any idea.

This is all, at least, assuming that the process follows the big time college football version of the Golden Rule, which is that the one who has the gold makes the rule.

You make some excellent points, and as long as there is no monetary difference between hosting a quarterfinal vs a semifinal, I can see the “golden” bowls pushing for the traditional date with a P5 champ.

I have to think the Big XII moves their affiliation to the Cotton Bowl and changes the location of their CCG to Houston, or perhaps a rotation that also includes San Antonio; both of which have hosted in the past. Now that Nebraska and Mizzou are gone, there isn’t the power for the demand of Kansas City, or to a lesser extent, St. Louis.

The Fiesta is an excellent bowl, but if you’re the Big XII champ, i.e. Oklahoma or Texas, why wouldn’t you want to host in your backyard? Why potentially “host” Arizona St., USC, UCLA, or Colorado in Glendale, AZ?
(This post was last modified: 06-19-2021 08:16 AM by esayem.)
06-19-2021 08:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,098
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 760
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #62
RE: Bowl Affiliation in New 12-Team Format
(06-19-2021 08:15 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(06-18-2021 11:23 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(06-18-2021 09:53 PM)esayem Wrote:  The Sugar, Peach, and arguably the Orange are all in SEC territory, so I don’t see any reason the SEC would object to the Sugar hosting a semi every three or four years. They legitimately have the best setup of any power conference with half the bowl sites being in their neck of the woods. The Peach does serve better as a semi as long as their CCG is played in ATL. Of course, they could always move that to Jacksonville or better yet, Birmingham!! I kid, but Tampa wouldn’t be bad.

So if they let the QF bowls be a conduit for more money, the question would be which bowl could and would channel more money.

There are three countervailing factors. One upside is that large live audiences continue to become more scarce, increasing the relative value of the remaining ones to advertisers. The other upside is that they would be hosting championship knockout games, so everything else equal that is a larger audience. One downside is that under the new structure, there is less guarantee about the match-up, so regionally focused money may not grow in proportion to overall money in the system.

The two ways they can get more regional certainty is to have a contract to host a conference champion if they should be a top four conference champion, or to have contracts with two conferences to host the highest seeded of the two. The first gives a conference region to target, but the risk that conference champion is not top four, the second gives two conference regions to target, but substantial uncertainty how often any given region will be represented.

There is in any event more uncertainty for the three current Contract Bowls no matter what they do, and with greater uncertainty comes a need for a higher expected surplus for the bowl committee, to cover the risk. This is a big reason why I expect the relative balance between Bowl revenue and CFP media contract revenue will shift toward the latter.

And then the different bowls have different levels of financial strength and different abilities to pay.

With the college football audience trending older, I expect the fading bloom of a Rose Bowl bid in Big Ten country, now that it only hosts the champion when fails to reach the season goal of a CFP bid, hasn't faded as much as some people may thing, and if it is placed in the championship path again, that will instantly freshen the bloom. And the fall back of being a "home" PAC-12 bowl when not a Big Ten bowl seems like it would be a strong appeal to the Rose Bowl, which is why I continue to think "best of Big Ten or PAC-12" contracts are likely the Rose Bowl's preference, and therefore the contract package that they will pay they most for, in terms of bowl payout.

AFAICT, the Sugar Bowl has the second deepest pockets, and the greatest certainty for the Sugar Bowl is an exclusive contract to host the SEC champion if a top seed. Over the likely life of the contract, that is the single conference champion with the lowest risk of falling out of the top four champions.

AFAICT, the Orange Bowl has the third deepest pockets, and given that the Sugar Bowl would win a bidding war for the SEC champion it won't enter that bidding war but would instead go for its second preference, the ACC champion.

That leaves the Peach Bowl as a semi-final bowl and the Fiesta Bowl and Cotton Bowl in a bidding war for the BigXII. Don't ask me which of those two would win the bidding war, I don't have any idea.

This is all, at least, assuming that the process follows the big time college football version of the Golden Rule, which is that the one who has the gold makes the rule.

You make some excellent points, and as long as there is no monetary difference between hosting a quarterfinal vs a semifinal, I can see the “golden” bowls pushing for the traditional date with a P5 champ.

I have to think the Big XII moves their affiliation to the Cotton Bowl and changes the location of their CCG to Houston, or perhaps a rotation that also includes San Antonio; both of which have hosted in the past. Now that Nebraska and Mizzou are gone, there isn’t the power for the demand of Kansas City, or to a lesser extent, St. Louis.

The Fiesta is an excellent bowl, but if you’re the Big XII champ, i.e. Oklahoma or Texas, why wouldn’t you want to host in your backyard? Why potentially “host” Arizona St., USC, UCLA, or Colorado in Glendale, AZ?

Typically, because one bow can offer a larger participation payment. I have no idea which has deeper pockets between the Cotton and Fiesta Bowl, or whether the BigXII affiliation would be a prime revenue driver so either could offer similar and it comes down to preference for a location.
06-19-2021 08:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
schmolik Online
CSNBB's Big 10 Cheerleader
*

Posts: 8,572
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation: 637
I Root For: UIUC, PSU, Nova
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Post: #63
RE: Bowl Affiliation in New 12-Team Format
I have a feeling that the bowl games will either want to host the quarterfinals (New Year's Day time frame) or just host separate bowls. The purpose of most of the bowl games are in addition to a football game a tourist attraction to the teams and the fans. Playing the game on a weeknight in the second or third week of January will kill the tourism part of the bowl. That is why the current CFP has the championship game not tied to bowl games and why after two cycles the BCS decided on the "double hosting" model so the bowls can still have their traditional "New Year's Day" bowl and the championship bowl. The "semifinals" will probably seem more like NCAA Championship games than bowl games. We know the Rose Bowl doesn't want to give up its New Year's Day slot to play on January 10th. I don't see any of the other bowls wanting to do the same. The problem is only four bowls a year will get the chance to host quarterfinals. Maybe they'll just choose four (Rose, Sugar, Cotton, Orange) and the other two "NY6" will get permanently demoted. Maybe they will rotate the current six (two out of three) and the bowl hosts a traditional matchup the third year. Maybe they add two more bowls to the rotation (eight total) and they alternate every other year. But I see just having the SF's being detached from the bowls a better solution for everyone.
06-19-2021 08:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,098
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 760
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #64
RE: Bowl Affiliation in New 12-Team Format
If you have the system Frank the Tank described, where the Rose and Sugar bowl have "best of two" contracts with the Big Ten / Pac 12 and SEC / Big XII, and the Orange Bowl has a "if available" contract with the ACC, then the Cotton, Fiesta and Peach could rotate one QF every three years, and host SF's the other two.

But as you mention, when they host SF's, they could also host bowls to non-CFP schools in post-Christmas / NY. Indeed, if there are participants chosen from conferences with fewer CFP bids that year, the non-Contract Bowl conferences might push for that to include the #7 FBS champion, so, eg, the next highest ranked from each of the three P5 conferences sending the fewest to the CFP that year, plus the #7 FBS champion.

Obviously in the unusual circumstance that the #7 is a Contract Bowl conference, that means the non-Contract Bowl conferences have two schools in the CFP, so they are certainly not going to complain about losing the exhibition game!
06-19-2021 09:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 16,247
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 1202
I Root For: Olde Ironclad
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #65
RE: Bowl Affiliation in New 12-Team Format
(06-19-2021 08:54 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(06-19-2021 08:15 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(06-18-2021 11:23 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(06-18-2021 09:53 PM)esayem Wrote:  The Sugar, Peach, and arguably the Orange are all in SEC territory, so I don’t see any reason the SEC would object to the Sugar hosting a semi every three or four years. They legitimately have the best setup of any power conference with half the bowl sites being in their neck of the woods. The Peach does serve better as a semi as long as their CCG is played in ATL. Of course, they could always move that to Jacksonville or better yet, Birmingham!! I kid, but Tampa wouldn’t be bad.

So if they let the QF bowls be a conduit for more money, the question would be which bowl could and would channel more money.

There are three countervailing factors. One upside is that large live audiences continue to become more scarce, increasing the relative value of the remaining ones to advertisers. The other upside is that they would be hosting championship knockout games, so everything else equal that is a larger audience. One downside is that under the new structure, there is less guarantee about the match-up, so regionally focused money may not grow in proportion to overall money in the system.

The two ways they can get more regional certainty is to have a contract to host a conference champion if they should be a top four conference champion, or to have contracts with two conferences to host the highest seeded of the two. The first gives a conference region to target, but the risk that conference champion is not top four, the second gives two conference regions to target, but substantial uncertainty how often any given region will be represented.

There is in any event more uncertainty for the three current Contract Bowls no matter what they do, and with greater uncertainty comes a need for a higher expected surplus for the bowl committee, to cover the risk. This is a big reason why I expect the relative balance between Bowl revenue and CFP media contract revenue will shift toward the latter.

And then the different bowls have different levels of financial strength and different abilities to pay.

With the college football audience trending older, I expect the fading bloom of a Rose Bowl bid in Big Ten country, now that it only hosts the champion when fails to reach the season goal of a CFP bid, hasn't faded as much as some people may thing, and if it is placed in the championship path again, that will instantly freshen the bloom. And the fall back of being a "home" PAC-12 bowl when not a Big Ten bowl seems like it would be a strong appeal to the Rose Bowl, which is why I continue to think "best of Big Ten or PAC-12" contracts are likely the Rose Bowl's preference, and therefore the contract package that they will pay they most for, in terms of bowl payout.

AFAICT, the Sugar Bowl has the second deepest pockets, and the greatest certainty for the Sugar Bowl is an exclusive contract to host the SEC champion if a top seed. Over the likely life of the contract, that is the single conference champion with the lowest risk of falling out of the top four champions.

AFAICT, the Orange Bowl has the third deepest pockets, and given that the Sugar Bowl would win a bidding war for the SEC champion it won't enter that bidding war but would instead go for its second preference, the ACC champion.

That leaves the Peach Bowl as a semi-final bowl and the Fiesta Bowl and Cotton Bowl in a bidding war for the BigXII. Don't ask me which of those two would win the bidding war, I don't have any idea.

This is all, at least, assuming that the process follows the big time college football version of the Golden Rule, which is that the one who has the gold makes the rule.

You make some excellent points, and as long as there is no monetary difference between hosting a quarterfinal vs a semifinal, I can see the “golden” bowls pushing for the traditional date with a P5 champ.

I have to think the Big XII moves their affiliation to the Cotton Bowl and changes the location of their CCG to Houston, or perhaps a rotation that also includes San Antonio; both of which have hosted in the past. Now that Nebraska and Mizzou are gone, there isn’t the power for the demand of Kansas City, or to a lesser extent, St. Louis.

The Fiesta is an excellent bowl, but if you’re the Big XII champ, i.e. Oklahoma or Texas, why wouldn’t you want to host in your backyard? Why potentially “host” Arizona St., USC, UCLA, or Colorado in Glendale, AZ?

Typically, because one bow can offer a larger participation payment. I have no idea which has deeper pockets between the Cotton and Fiesta Bowl, or whether the BigXII affiliation would be a prime revenue driver so either could offer similar and it comes down to preference for a location.

I suppose this is all assuming unique conference contracts remain in place. So theoretically a #4 Ohio State could garner a larger payout over say a #1 Clemson? Or a team ranked #10 gets into the Sugar Bowl after a first round win and garners a larger payout than a team in the top 4? Something just seems off about that. I have the feeling if the bowls go all in on this as part of the playoff then payouts will be dispersed more similar to the NCAA tournament.
06-19-2021 10:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,098
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 760
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #66
RE: Bowl Affiliation in New 12-Team Format
(06-19-2021 10:11 AM)esayem Wrote:  I suppose this is all assuming unique conference contracts remain in place. So theoretically a #4 Ohio State could garner a larger payout over say a #1 Clemson? Or a team ranked #10 gets into the Sugar Bowl after a first round win and garners a larger payout than a team in the top 4?

Though the payment goes to the conference, so it would be the Big Ten garnering more from a #4 Ohio State than a the ACC garners from a #1 Clemson ... just as would often happen under the current system, when the Rose Bowl is not hosting a Semi-Final.

Quote: Something just seems off about that. I have the feeling if the bowls go all in on this as part of the playoff then payouts will be dispersed more similar to the NCAA tournament.

Well, there's ought to and likely to.

Also, the NCAA payouts are only paying out 30% of the surplus, the rest goes into a single lump sum payout to "the NCAA". Even if 30% is distributed through participation units, there's still the distribution of the majority of the payout through lump sum payments, and the way the current system channels more money to the SEC and Big Ten and Big XII is through the Contract Bowl system.
06-20-2021 06:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 16,247
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 1202
I Root For: Olde Ironclad
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #67
RE: Bowl Affiliation in New 12-Team Format
(06-20-2021 06:45 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(06-19-2021 10:11 AM)esayem Wrote:  I suppose this is all assuming unique conference contracts remain in place. So theoretically a #4 Ohio State could garner a larger payout over say a #1 Clemson? Or a team ranked #10 gets into the Sugar Bowl after a first round win and garners a larger payout than a team in the top 4?

Though the payment goes to the conference, so it would be the Big Ten garnering more from a #4 Ohio State than a the ACC garners from a #1 Clemson ... just as would often happen under the current system, when the Rose Bowl is not hosting a Semi-Final.

Quote: Something just seems off about that. I have the feeling if the bowls go all in on this as part of the playoff then payouts will be dispersed more similar to the NCAA tournament.

Well, there's ought to and likely to.

Also, the NCAA payouts are only paying out 30% of the surplus, the rest goes into a single lump sum payout to "the NCAA". Even if 30% is distributed through participation units, there's still the distribution of the majority of the payout through lump sum payments, and the way the current system channels more money to the SEC and Big Ten and Big XII is through the Contract Bowl system.

Yes, you’re correct about the tournament. I was more or less saying I believe the bowls should be placed under one “playoff contract”; surely there will be enough money to go around.

A team winning a first round game and being placed in the Rose Bowl to receive a fortuitous Rosey conference payout is bogus and will be addressed.
(This post was last modified: 06-20-2021 08:37 AM by esayem.)
06-20-2021 08:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,098
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 760
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #68
RE: Bowl Affiliation in New 12-Team Format
(06-20-2021 08:36 AM)esayem Wrote:  Yes, you’re correct about the tournament. I was more or less saying I believe the bowls should be placed under one “playoff contract”; surely there will be enough money to go around.

The bowls are a money source ... in a year with the Rose, Sugar and Orange bowl all being in their "consolation bowl" contract phase, rather than hosting the Semi-Finals, that is $187.5m split between the five P5 conferences in a fixed way -- that is, they are participation fees, but the participating conference is locked in place -- and another $31.5m in participation fees for the other Orange Bowl spot and the Access Bowl spot. And some of their revenue generating ability will rise for the same reason that the TV broadcast rights money will rise.

Quote: A team winning a first round game and being placed in the Rose Bowl to receive a fortuitous Rosey conference payout is bogus and will be addressed.

It was already arguably bogus that the ACC Contract Bowl payment was $27.5m in 2/3 of the years when the other four bowls get $40m for 2/3 of the years, but we have become accustomed to different conferences getting a range of bowl apperance fees based on how deep the pockets of the different bowls are.

The challenge that the exploratory committee completely ducked was how to keep the really big flows of Bowl money flowing in in the context of the Bowls not having the "we are only CFP hosts 1/3 of the time, the rest of the time we are just regular NY6 bowls" compromise available.

There are a lot of sharp people and a lot of money on the table for getting it right, so I am not saying I think they will fail to hammer it out, but they are facing a tension between getting the most posssible out of the bowls and having system for a distribution of funds that all 11 members of the management committee will sign off on.
(This post was last modified: 06-20-2021 10:39 AM by BruceMcF.)
06-20-2021 10:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Crayton Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,328
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation: 186
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #69
RE: Bowl Affiliation in New 12-Team Format
Power Conferences will get their money through the bowls, THEN the playoff will set atop those contracts, as now. At least 1 “access” bowl will be added in case a Power champ misses the CFP, but don’t expect a 7th Champ unless there are multiple levels of access bowls.

With the Pac-12 stink about missing the playoff, could they negotiate to bump the 6th at large in that scenario, to guarantee their champ (#25 Oregon) or highest ranked team (#17 USC) represents the conference? I think as long as they get their money and a spot in that 7th access bowl, they’ll have enough.
(This post was last modified: 06-20-2021 01:29 PM by Crayton.)
06-20-2021 01:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wahoowa84 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,410
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 486
I Root For: UVa
Location:
Post: #70
RE: Bowl Affiliation in New 12-Team Format
(06-19-2021 09:57 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  If you have the system Frank the Tank described, where the Rose and Sugar bowl have "best of two" contracts with the Big Ten / Pac 12 and SEC / Big XII, and the Orange Bowl has a "if available" contract with the ACC, then the Cotton, Fiesta and Peach could rotate one QF every three years, and host SF's the other two.

But as you mention, when they host SF's, they could also host bowls to non-CFP schools in post-Christmas / NY. Indeed, if there are participants chosen from conferences with fewer CFP bids that year, the non-Contract Bowl conferences might push for that to include the #7 FBS champion, so, eg, the next highest ranked from each of the three P5 conferences sending the fewest to the CFP that year, plus the #7 FBS champion.

Obviously in the unusual circumstance that the #7 is a Contract Bowl conference, that means the non-Contract Bowl conferences have two schools in the CFP, so they are certainly not going to complain about losing the exhibition game!

The contract bowls resulted in the ACC being materially behind the other P5 conferences financially. The ratings for the Orange Bowl have been good, but definitely below the Rose Bowl. If the new system creates conference-to-Bowl tie-ins, they need to disentangle the financial implications of the tie-ins. The Rose Bowl demands the best time slot for New Years Day which is great for building an audience / brand.
06-20-2021 03:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,719
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #71
Exclamation RE: Bowl Affiliation in New 12-Team Format
(06-18-2021 09:53 PM)esayem Wrote:  The Sugar, Peach, and arguably the Orange are all in SEC territory, so I don’t see any reason the SEC would object to the Sugar hosting a semi every three or four years. They legitimately have the best setup of any power conference with half the bowl sites being in their neck of the woods. The Peach does serve better as a semi as long as their CCG is played in ATL. Of course, they could always move that to Jacksonville or better yet, Birmingham!! I kid, but Tampa wouldn’t be bad.

I still don't understand why Indianapolis doesn't have a major bowl. Seems like it could compete with the Cotton Bowl on more or less equal footing (not like Dallas has great weather in early January).
06-20-2021 03:54 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,098
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 760
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #72
RE: Bowl Affiliation in New 12-Team Format
(06-20-2021 03:19 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  The contract bowls resulted in the ACC being materially behind the other P5 conferences financially. The ratings for the Orange Bowl have been good, but definitely below the Rose Bowl. If the new system creates conference-to-Bowl tie-ins, they need to disentangle the financial implications of the tie-ins. The Rose Bowl demands the best time slot for New Years Day which is great for building an audience / brand.

Disentangling the financial implications of the tie-ins means less total money from the bowls.

That's the trade off ... equal payoffs will be the payoffs that the bowl at the margin can afford and the wealthier bowls simply having bigger surpluses. Soaking the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl for all they can afford and are wiling to pay requires having the Orange Bowl pay less, because it cannot afford as much.

Do they get enough money from the broadcast rights that they can afford to leave some Bowl money on the table for equity? I certainly wouldn't venture to guess one way or another, since I have no source of information upon which to base that guess.

Indeed, the possibility of having an agreement to schedule the Big Ten and PAC-12 teams into the Rose "to the extent practical" could soak the Rose Bowl for more while charging the other bowls proportionally less, if the payment is for that guarantee, and the other Quarterfinal Bowls pay for their guarantee ... then other bowls that have a one sided guarantee only pay half of the "guarantee clause" payment, and all Quarterfinal bowls pay the same participation fee to the conferences for each participant.
(This post was last modified: 06-21-2021 04:26 AM by BruceMcF.)
06-20-2021 11:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #73
RE: Bowl Affiliation in New 12-Team Format
(06-20-2021 03:19 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  The contract bowls resulted in the ACC being materially behind the other P5 conferences financially.

"Materially behind" is a stretch. First, the payouts for "contract bowls" are only made in 2 of every 3 years -- no payout to the home conferences for years when those bowls are CFP semifinals. Second, the difference between each Rose/Sugar payout and each Orange payout to the ACC is $15 million. That's a difference of about $1 million per member school, and because those payouts are made in only 2 of every 3 years, it works out to a per-school difference of about $700,000 per year.

$700,000 per year is a whole lot of money to your bank account or mine, but only a minor "nice to have" amount to an athletic department in a conference whose median athletic budget is more than $100 million per year.
06-21-2021 02:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,098
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 760
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #74
RE: Bowl Affiliation in New 12-Team Format
(06-21-2021 02:28 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(06-20-2021 03:19 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  The contract bowls resulted in the ACC being materially behind the other P5 conferences financially.

"Materially behind" is a stretch. First, the payouts for "contract bowls" are only made in 2 of every 3 years -- no payout to the home conferences for years when those bowls are CFP semifinals. Second, the difference between each Rose/Sugar payout and each Orange payout to the ACC is $15 million. That's a difference of about $1 million per member school, and because those payouts are made in only 2 of every 3 years, it works out to a per-school difference of about $700,000 per year.

$700,000 per year is a whole lot of money to your bank account or mine, but only a minor "nice to have" amount to an athletic department in a conference whose median athletic budget is more than $100 million per year.

This is where it matters whether the growth in potential revenue from Bowls keeps pace with the growth in potential broadcast rights revenue or falls behind, since the smaller a share of the total the Bowl rights are, the easier it becomes to sacrifice the Bowl revenue at the margin if that helps keep all of the stakeholders "happy enough" to get a unanimous vote for some (likely amended) version of the 12 school playoff proposal.

If the media rights base quadruples from ~$62m per conference (net of ARP funds) to ~$250m per Contract Bowl conference (~$17m per football member for the ACC), and the available Bowl money doubles, accepting a $1-$2m disparity per school by waving through something close to the present contract fee structure, modified to fit the new system, might seem like a perfectly sound commercial move if it gets the deal done in time to two seasons after next rather than three seasons after next.
06-21-2021 04:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
schmolik Online
CSNBB's Big 10 Cheerleader
*

Posts: 8,572
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation: 637
I Root For: UIUC, PSU, Nova
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Post: #75
RE: Bowl Affiliation in New 12-Team Format
(06-20-2021 03:54 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(06-18-2021 09:53 PM)esayem Wrote:  The Sugar, Peach, and arguably the Orange are all in SEC territory, so I don’t see any reason the SEC would object to the Sugar hosting a semi every three or four years. They legitimately have the best setup of any power conference with half the bowl sites being in their neck of the woods. The Peach does serve better as a semi as long as their CCG is played in ATL. Of course, they could always move that to Jacksonville or better yet, Birmingham!! I kid, but Tampa wouldn’t be bad.

I still don't understand why Indianapolis doesn't have a major bowl. Seems like it could compete with the Cotton Bowl on more or less equal footing (not like Dallas has great weather in early January).

"Major bowl", while the goalposts have changed in the last few decades (first Bowl Coalition, then Bowl Alliance, then BCS) but the criteria usually comes down to for the most part historical, bowl destination city, and money. The original big four bowl historic bowls (Rose, Orange, Sugar, Cotton) will have a leg up. The Fiesta at one point outbid the Cotton (including outbidding the other bowls for Miami/Penn State in 1987, taking advantage of the fact that the other bowls had conference agreements and they didn't, which put them on the map). The Peach did get the coveted sixth slot but Atlanta has hosted a bowl game (Peach or for years it was called the Chick Fil A Bowl) for years. They've also hosted the SEC Championship Game for most of its history. Indianapolis? Major bowl? Do they even have a bowl game now? Maybe the Big Ten should move their bowl game from Detroit to Indy, it would be a lot safer and probably warmer as well. Indy probably has money (they are hosting at least one national championship) but no history in terms of college football bowls. That's why in terms of college football bowls they have an uphill battle to fight. If they add to the major bowls, the next cities will likely be from current bowl sites like Orlando, Tampa, San Antonio, or Las Vegas (San Diego would be in the running if they had a modern stadium).
06-21-2021 05:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,098
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 760
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #76
RE: Bowl Affiliation in New 12-Team Format
(06-21-2021 05:41 AM)schmolik Wrote:  ... Maybe the Big Ten should move their bowl game from Detroit to Indy, it would be a lot safer and probably warmer as well. ...

But then the MAC will move back to a primary spot in Detroit, and they can't have that.
06-21-2021 06:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #77
RE: Bowl Affiliation in New 12-Team Format
(06-21-2021 05:41 AM)schmolik Wrote:  
(06-20-2021 03:54 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(06-18-2021 09:53 PM)esayem Wrote:  The Sugar, Peach, and arguably the Orange are all in SEC territory, so I don’t see any reason the SEC would object to the Sugar hosting a semi every three or four years. They legitimately have the best setup of any power conference with half the bowl sites being in their neck of the woods. The Peach does serve better as a semi as long as their CCG is played in ATL. Of course, they could always move that to Jacksonville or better yet, Birmingham!! I kid, but Tampa wouldn’t be bad.

I still don't understand why Indianapolis doesn't have a major bowl. Seems like it could compete with the Cotton Bowl on more or less equal footing (not like Dallas has great weather in early January).

"Major bowl", while the goalposts have changed in the last few decades (first Bowl Coalition, then Bowl Alliance, then BCS) but the criteria usually comes down to for the most part historical, bowl destination city, and money. The original big four bowl historic bowls (Rose, Orange, Sugar, Cotton) will have a leg up. The Fiesta at one point outbid the Cotton (including outbidding the other bowls for Miami/Penn State in 1987, taking advantage of the fact that the other bowls had conference agreements and they didn't, which put them on the map). The Peach did get the coveted sixth slot but Atlanta has hosted a bowl game (Peach or for years it was called the Chick Fil A Bowl) for years. They've also hosted the SEC Championship Game for most of its history. Indianapolis? Major bowl? Do they even have a bowl game now? Maybe the Big Ten should move their bowl game from Detroit to Indy, it would be a lot safer and probably warmer as well. Indy probably has money (they are hosting at least one national championship) but no history in terms of college football bowls. That's why in terms of college football bowls they have an uphill battle to fight. If they add to the major bowls, the next cities will likely be from current bowl sites like Orlando, Tampa, San Antonio, or Las Vegas (San Diego would be in the running if they had a modern stadium).

Holiday Bowl in San Diego and Texas Bowl in Houston just missed the cut for joining the CFP 8 years ago. Holiday of course is now a different kind of bowl playing in 35,000 seat Aztec Stadium.

To be a major bowl in my opinion the game should be at least 1st tier in its market. I also count games as major bowls by their longevity and conference affiliation.

1902 Rose Bowl
1935 Orange Bowl
1935 Sugar Bowl
1935 Sun Bowl
1945 Gator Bowl
1946 Citrus Bowl
1937 Cotton Bowl
1959 Liberty Bowl
1968 Peach Bowl
1971 Fiesta Bowl
1976 Independence Bowl
1978 Holiday Bowl
1986 Outback Bowl
1992 Las Vegas Bowl
1993 Alamo Bowl

Those are the 15 oldest bowl games at the FBS level.
06-21-2021 12:56 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CoastalJuan Offline
Business Drunk
*

Posts: 6,900
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 517
I Root For: ECU
Location: Right near da beeach
Post: #78
RE: Bowl Affiliation in New 12-Team Format
(06-16-2021 02:50 PM)whittx Wrote:  Do we want to go 2 weeks beyond NYD and start getting into the spring semester at some schools? Or would this result in putting the NCG prime time MLK weekend?

People keep throwing out these arbitrary W-L counts and dates without a ton of context. "You could have a 3-loss team playing in the third week of January!". I don't get it. NFL can have a 7-loss team playing the first weekend in February.

Don't university calendar years still traditionally go August-May? Why does the season have to fit into a semester? Doesn't basketball span two semesters?
06-21-2021 01:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,098
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 760
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #79
RE: Bowl Affiliation in New 12-Team Format
(06-21-2021 01:55 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  
(06-16-2021 02:50 PM)whittx Wrote:  Do we want to go 2 weeks beyond NYD and start getting into the spring semester at some schools? Or would this result in putting the NCG prime time MLK weekend?

People keep throwing out these arbitrary W-L counts and dates without a ton of context. "You could have a 3-loss team playing in the third week of January!". I don't get it. NFL can have a 7-loss team playing the first weekend in February.

Don't university calendar years still traditionally go August-May? Why does the season have to fit into a semester? Doesn't basketball span two semesters?

Theoretically Basketball, Hockey, Indoor Track & Field, etc. are "Winter" sports and Football, Soccer, Cross Country, etc. are "Fall" sports ... and theoretically there are no "Summer" sports, but here we are in June and the College World Series is playing.

As far as disruption to "student athletes" (but confer the recent Supreme Court decision), disrupting final exams is a lot more disruption than forcing the student athlete to miss the class where the syllabus is handed out and either the prof rambles on about what to expect in the course or in some smaller, upper division courses a break the ice exercise is done to give an idea what the course involves, and also to try to convince students to not drop the course when they find out there is a term paper due the week after Spring Break.

So I don't see where cramming second round games into the time where students could do a makeup for final exam missed because of a first round game is superior to having the QF during semester break and the SF and Championship game early in Spring semester from a whole "disrupt their studies" perspective.
(This post was last modified: 06-21-2021 08:20 PM by BruceMcF.)
06-21-2021 08:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.