(06-25-2021 06:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 07:13 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 02:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  ... And again, that would seem to be ESPN, not the CFP conferences. And at least publicly, it's the conferences that are driving this, not ESPN.

I just find that .... interesting. Maybe it's not about ratings, maybe ESPN is fine with the CFP ratings, maybe it's other things that are driving this push from the CFP conferences.

And maybe ESPN is pushing for it behind closed doors, and the explantion for who is publicly pushing for it is simply which parties have stakeholders that need to be reached through public advocacy.

Maybe, but we have no evidence of that. What we do have evidence of is - push from CFP conferences, silence from ESPN.

Usually, in situations like this, even if one party is publicly remaining silent, bloggers and reporters will be saying stuff like "my sources tell me that ESPN brass have been encouraging this behind the scenes" and the like. I haven't even seen that. Have you?

Let's say, for a second, that ESPN isn't involved at all and has no idea any of this discussion is going on. Completely unaware and not advocating for it at all.

I still don't see why you find it surprising that conferences, that yes are guaranteed their media payouts for the remainder of their term-contracts, wouldn't have any kind of interest in increasing their value ahead of the always upcoming contract renegotiations. Most of their contracts (everyone but SEC and ACC right?) and the CFP contract are up in the next 5 years and you're acting baffled that they would be proactive about positioning themselves for the next one.

(06-25-2021 08:28 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(06-25-2021 06:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 07:13 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 02:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  ... And again, that would seem to be ESPN, not the CFP conferences. And at least publicly, it's the conferences that are driving this, not ESPN.

I just find that .... interesting. Maybe it's not about ratings, maybe ESPN is fine with the CFP ratings, maybe it's other things that are driving this push from the CFP conferences.

And maybe ESPN is pushing for it behind closed doors, and the explantion for who is publicly pushing for it is simply which parties have stakeholders that need to be reached through public advocacy.

Maybe, but we have no evidence of that. What we do have evidence of is - push from CFP conferences, silence from ESPN.

Usually, in situations like this, even if one party is publicly remaining silent, bloggers and reporters will be saying stuff like "my sources tell me that ESPN brass have been encouraging this behind the scenes" and the like. I haven't even seen that. Have you?

Let's say, for a second, that ESPN isn't involved at all and has no idea any of this discussion is going on. Completely unaware and not advocating for it at all.

I still don't see why you find it surprising that conferences, that yes are guaranteed their media payouts for the remainder of their term-contracts, wouldn't have any kind of interest in increasing their value ahead of the always upcoming contract renegotiations. Most of their contracts (everyone but SEC and ACC right?) and the CFP contract are up in the next 5 years and you're acting baffled that they would be proactive about positioning themselves for the next one.

I'm acting baffled about what? IIRC I haven't commented on the motivation of the CFP conferences to push this - I think that's pretty obvious: They always want more money, but particularly coming out of a virus year that saw them lose a ton of money, for some P5 programs in the tens of millions.

Positioning for better media deals could also be another, though one could also argue that the SEC and ACC might be against that, because if adopting a 12-team playoff soon will lead to a bonus-windfall for the PAC, B1G and Big 12 when their deals come up in the next couple years, that doesn't benefit them and relatively speaking, harms them by making their competition richer and stronger.

No, I think I've just commented on ESPN's silence, and I've done that because I've seen many around here talk about ratings, as if interest in college football has declined as a result of the four-team CFP. The notion that Alabama-Clemson-Ohio State every year in the playoffs has turned off swathes of college football fans and something Needs To Be Done Now to revive interest.

As the report I posted shows, it seems that CFB is actually as popular as ever, on most metrics. The only metric it seems to have declined on is attendance, but that trend pre-dates the CFP and has other obvious causes. Which would also explain why ESPN is silent - if they are making nice money off the CFP deal they would have no reason to push for anything new right now..

(06-25-2021 08:28 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(06-25-2021 06:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 07:13 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 02:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  ... And again, that would seem to be ESPN, not the CFP conferences. And at least publicly, it's the conferences that are driving this, not ESPN.

I just find that .... interesting. Maybe it's not about ratings, maybe ESPN is fine with the CFP ratings, maybe it's other things that are driving this push from the CFP conferences.

And maybe ESPN is pushing for it behind closed doors, and the explantion for who is publicly pushing for it is simply which parties have stakeholders that need to be reached through public advocacy.

Maybe, but we have no evidence of that. What we do have evidence of is - push from CFP conferences, silence from ESPN.

Usually, in situations like this, even if one party is publicly remaining silent, bloggers and reporters will be saying stuff like "my sources tell me that ESPN brass have been encouraging this behind the scenes" and the like. I haven't even seen that. Have you?

Let's say, for a second, that ESPN isn't involved at all and has no idea any of this discussion is going on. Completely unaware and not advocating for it at all.

I still don't see why you find it surprising that conferences, that yes are guaranteed their media payouts for the remainder of their term-contracts, wouldn't have any kind of interest in increasing their value ahead of the always upcoming contract renegotiations. Most of their contracts (everyone but SEC and ACC right?) and the CFP contract are up in the next 5 years and you're acting baffled that they would be proactive about positioning themselves for the next one.

I have to think that this had to have the blessing of ESPN, if not directed by ESPN. I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if they had someone in the airport conference room with the subcommittee.

Of course, ESPN can’t let it look like they were involved, as it would look like a money grab and would gain lots of detractors.

Notice how fast dollar figures for the new proposal were thrown out. You can’t come up with tv valuations that fast, not unless you had insider information.

(06-25-2021 11:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-25-2021 08:28 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(06-25-2021 06:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 07:13 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 02:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  ... And again, that would seem to be ESPN, not the CFP conferences. And at least publicly, it's the conferences that are driving this, not ESPN.

I just find that .... interesting. Maybe it's not about ratings, maybe ESPN is fine with the CFP ratings, maybe it's other things that are driving this push from the CFP conferences.

And maybe ESPN is pushing for it behind closed doors, and the explantion for who is publicly pushing for it is simply which parties have stakeholders that need to be reached through public advocacy.

Maybe, but we have no evidence of that. What we do have evidence of is - push from CFP conferences, silence from ESPN.

Usually, in situations like this, even if one party is publicly remaining silent, bloggers and reporters will be saying stuff like "my sources tell me that ESPN brass have been encouraging this behind the scenes" and the like. I haven't even seen that. Have you?

Let's say, for a second, that ESPN isn't involved at all and has no idea any of this discussion is going on. Completely unaware and not advocating for it at all.

I still don't see why you find it surprising that conferences, that yes are guaranteed their media payouts for the remainder of their term-contracts, wouldn't have any kind of interest in increasing their value ahead of the always upcoming contract renegotiations. Most of their contracts (everyone but SEC and ACC right?) and the CFP contract are up in the next 5 years and you're acting baffled that they would be proactive about positioning themselves for the next one.

I'm acting baffled about what? IIRC I haven't commented on the motivation of the CFP conferences to push this - I think that's pretty obvious: They always want more money, but particularly coming out of a virus year that saw them lose a ton of money, for some P5 programs in the tens of millions.

Positioning for better media deals could also be another, though one could also argue that the SEC and ACC might be against that, because if adopting a 12-team playoff soon will lead to a bonus-windfall for the PAC, B1G and Big 12 when their deals come up in the next couple years, that doesn't benefit them and relatively speaking, harms them by making their competition richer and stronger.

No, I think I've just commented on ESPN's silence, and I've done that because I've seen many around here talk about ratings, as if interest in college football has declined as a result of the four-team CFP. The notion that Alabama-Clemson-Ohio State every year in the playoffs has turned off swathes of college football fans and something Needs To Be Done Now to revive interest.

As the report I posted shows, it seems that CFB is actually as popular as ever, on most metrics. The only metric it seems to have declined on is attendance, but that trend pre-dates the CFP and has other obvious causes. Which would also explain why ESPN is silent - if they are making nice money off the CFP deal they would have no reason to push for anything new right now..

The report only covers time up to the 2019 season, and seems to only compare 2019 to 2018.

CFPNC Ratings-Viewership by year:
2014: 18.6 - 34.623M (Ohio State-Oregon) ooo new CFP, fun!
2015: 15.0 - 26.709M (Alabama-Clemson) Cool matchup
2016: 14.2 - 26.029M (Alabama-Clemson) ...again?
2017: 15.6 - 28.443M (Alabama-Georgia) ooo a new team!
2018: 13.8 - 25.280M (Alabama-Clemson) seriously?
2019: 14.3 - 25.588M (LSU-Clemson) ooo a new team!
2020: 9.8 - 19.149M (Alabama-Ohio State) alright, I see

(06-25-2021 02:04 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  The report only covers time up to the 2019 season, and seems to only compare 2019 to 2018.

CFPNC Ratings-Viewership by year:
2014: 18.6 - 34.623M (Ohio State-Oregon) ooo new CFP, fun!
2015: 15.0 - 26.709M (Alabama-Clemson) Cool matchup
2016: 14.2 - 26.029M (Alabama-Clemson) ...again?
2017: 15.6 - 28.443M (Alabama-Georgia) ooo a new team!
2018: 13.8 - 25.280M (Alabama-Clemson) seriously?
2019: 14.3 - 25.588M (LSU-Clemson) ooo a new team!
2020: 9.8 - 19.149M (Alabama-Ohio State) alright, I see

That shows a pretty steep decline in ratings for the Clemson/Bama/OSU+ 1 show, with minor upticks when they have a different team. Coupled with the attendance declines, this shows that, by most metrics, the current CFP model is suffering from a decline in fan interest. The reason insiders close to ESPN so quickly provided actual valuations contained in the Wilner article shows that the networks also believe that advertisers will pay more for a more inclusive playoff, with the opportunity for Cinderella teams. ESPN executives haven't editorialized (they rarely do), but their shows have favorably discussed the new proposal at length, with multiple interviews from the members of the task force, including Craig Thompson, the MWC Commissioner who represented G5 teams on the task force. There is substantial momentum behind making more money and granting more access at the same time and they are, of course, inextricably intertwined.