(08-24-2021 12:25 PM)BigEastMike Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 11:01 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 10:30 AM)BigEastMike Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 10:16 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 09:26 AM)BigEastMike Wrote:  I don’t get this idea the the Big Ten has a problem with a 12 team playoff. They want more at large bids, the 6+6 assures the PAC gets its champ in and no AQ protects the playoff from a 8-4 or 7-5 Pitt beating Clemson on the ACC CCG and getting a spot in the playoff which no one wants.

It seems around here posters build on each other assumptions then spin them into “truth”.

I don't think the Big Ten is especially opposed to 12 teams.
They're motivated to protect the Rose Bowl and its Big Ten ties, which is do-able with a 12-team structure.
And, more speculatively, they may be motivated to make sure that the 12-team College Football Playoff package goes to market rather than just going to ESPN, maybe motivated to split the package into two pieces.

I think the Big Tens concern for the Rose Bowl is greatly exaggerated by message board posters. National titles and money is what’s most important to not only the Big Ten but all the power conferences.

You say that like those are somehow in tension with each other. We're not talking about the Rose Bowl as an alternative to the CFP, we're talking about the details of how the Rose Bowl fits into the 12 team CFP. The top 4 conference champs get a bye to the quarterfinals--it's not that hard to put in a tweak that ties them to specific bowls.

The Big Ten seems pretty sure that the Rose Bowl *is* money for them.

WAS money for them. You’re assuming they still feel it is or at least worth digging their heels in to protect. All the conferences know that an extended playoff is where the future money of the sport is going to come from and the added importance of games that might not have been so important in seasons past.

I'm a Big Ten guy through and through. It IS (present tense) money for them both tangible (straight up cash) and intangible (the worldwide exposure of the entire Tournament of Roses, including the Parade).

It's easy for the SEC to give up the Sugar Bowl and the ACC to give up the Orange Bowl because those games are completely interchangeable and no one cares about the tie-ins to those games. There aren't tens of millions of people worldwide that wake up on New Year's Day to watch the parade (and corresponding exposure for the participating schools and conferences) that leads into those games. In contrast, the Rose Bowl/Big Ten/Pac-12 relationship has an entirely different and unique value proposition, so what the rest of college football is essentially asking for is the Big Ten and Pac-12 to give something up that no one else has to give up. It's always easy to spend other people's money and, in this case, it's the money of the Big Ten and Pac-12.

I know lots of people outside of the Big Ten and Pac-12 don't think the Rose Bowl should be important or it's getting the way or it shouldn't be critical in the future... but make no mistake about it that the Rose Bowl IS important to those two conferences. We can argue whether that's right or wrong, but it's the truth.

link

https://pac-12.com/live

(08-24-2021 12:59 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 12:25 PM)BigEastMike Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 11:01 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 10:30 AM)BigEastMike Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 10:16 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  I don't think the Big Ten is especially opposed to 12 teams.
They're motivated to protect the Rose Bowl and its Big Ten ties, which is do-able with a 12-team structure.
And, more speculatively, they may be motivated to make sure that the 12-team College Football Playoff package goes to market rather than just going to ESPN, maybe motivated to split the package into two pieces.

I think the Big Tens concern for the Rose Bowl is greatly exaggerated by message board posters. National titles and money is what’s most important to not only the Big Ten but all the power conferences.

You say that like those are somehow in tension with each other. We're not talking about the Rose Bowl as an alternative to the CFP, we're talking about the details of how the Rose Bowl fits into the 12 team CFP. The top 4 conference champs get a bye to the quarterfinals--it's not that hard to put in a tweak that ties them to specific bowls.

The Big Ten seems pretty sure that the Rose Bowl *is* money for them.

WAS money for them. You’re assuming they still feel it is or at least worth digging their heels in to protect. All the conferences know that an extended playoff is where the future money of the sport is going to come from and the added importance of games that might not have been so important in seasons past.

I'm a Big Ten guy through and through. It IS (present tense) money for them both tangible (straight up cash) and intangible (the worldwide exposure of the entire Tournament of Roses, including the Parade).

It's easy for the SEC to give up the Sugar Bowl and the ACC to give up the Orange Bowl because those games are completely interchangeable and no one cares about the tie-ins to those games. There aren't tens of millions of people worldwide that wake up on New Year's Day to watch the parade (and corresponding exposure for the participating schools and conferences) that leads into those games. In contrast, the Rose Bowl/Big Ten/Pac-12 relationship has an entirely different and unique value proposition, so what the rest of college football is essentially asking for is the Big Ten and Pac-12 to give something up that no one else has to give up. It's always easy to spend other people's money and, in this case, it's the money of the Big Ten and Pac-12.

I know lots of people outside of the Big Ten and Pac-12 don't think the Rose Bowl should be important or it's getting the way or it shouldn't be critical in the future... but make no mistake about it that the Rose Bowl IS important to those two conferences. We can argue whether that's right or wrong, but it's the truth.

I’m sorry but tens of millions don’t watch the parade. LoL

(08-24-2021 12:59 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I'm a Big Ten guy through and through. It IS (present tense) money for them both tangible (straight up cash) and intangible (the worldwide exposure of the entire Tournament of Roses, including the Parade).

It's easy for the SEC to give up the Sugar Bowl and the ACC to give up the Orange Bowl because those games are completely interchangeable and no one cares about the tie-ins to those games. There aren't tens of millions of people worldwide that wake up on New Year's Day to watch the parade (and corresponding exposure for the participating schools and conferences) that leads into those games. In contrast, the Rose Bowl/Big Ten/Pac-12 relationship has an entirely different and unique value proposition, so what the rest of college football is essentially asking for is the Big Ten and Pac-12 to give something up that no one else has to give up. It's always easy to spend other people's money and, in this case, it's the money of the Big Ten and Pac-12.

I know lots of people outside of the Big Ten and Pac-12 don't think the Rose Bowl should be important or it's getting the way or it shouldn't be critical in the future... but make no mistake about it that the Rose Bowl IS important to those two conferences. We can argue whether that's right or wrong, but it's the truth.

+3 Couldn’t agree more…

Outside of playing for the National Title, The Rose Bowl is the most important PAC game.

As I said in another post. The two teams from the East SC fans looked forward to playing were Notre Dame and whatever Big Ten team made it to The Rose Bowl.

(08-24-2021 01:05 PM)chester Wrote:  link

https://pac-12.com/live

They made it possible for me to view the Pac-12 network, so this is already a major improvement.

(08-24-2021 12:25 PM)BigEastMike Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 11:01 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 10:30 AM)BigEastMike Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 10:16 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 09:26 AM)BigEastMike Wrote:  I don’t get this idea the the Big Ten has a problem with a 12 team playoff. They want more at large bids, the 6+6 assures the PAC gets its champ in and no AQ protects the playoff from a 8-4 or 7-5 Pitt beating Clemson on the ACC CCG and getting a spot in the playoff which no one wants.

It seems around here posters build on each other assumptions then spin them into “truth”.

I don't think the Big Ten is especially opposed to 12 teams.
They're motivated to protect the Rose Bowl and its Big Ten ties, which is do-able with a 12-team structure.
And, more speculatively, they may be motivated to make sure that the 12-team College Football Playoff package goes to market rather than just going to ESPN, maybe motivated to split the package into two pieces.

I think the Big Tens concern for the Rose Bowl is greatly exaggerated by message board posters. National titles and money is what’s most important to not only the Big Ten but all the power conferences.

You say that like those are somehow in tension with each other. We're not talking about the Rose Bowl as an alternative to the CFP, we're talking about the details of how the Rose Bowl fits into the 12 team CFP. The top 4 conference champs get a bye to the quarterfinals--it's not that hard to put in a tweak that ties them to specific bowls.

The Big Ten seems pretty sure that the Rose Bowl *is* money for them.

WAS money for them. You’re assuming they still feel it is or at least worth digging their heels in to protect. All the conferences know that an extended playoff is where the future money of the sport is going to come from and the added importance of games that might not have been so important in seasons past.

Sure. But.....why not both?

A Rose Bowl "Granddaddy of them all" Quarterfinal between a Big Ten champ and a PAc 12 champ, AND a money-vomiting 12 team playoff.

The 12 team playoff isn't really a threat to the Rose Bowl--it's pretty easy to slot in either the Big 10 or PAC-12 champ in the Rose Bowl, depending if it's an even or odd numbered year. It's a little more of a disruption to slot both in every year, assuming they're both Top 4 conference champs.

The 12 team playoff is a big threat to the value of the Big Ten and SEC Championship Games. In a 4 team or 8 team model, those are big games because they're play-in games--the winner is (90%) in, the loser is (90%) out. Even in a 5-1-2 or 6-2 system, the SEC CCG loser isn't guaranteed an at-large bid.

In a 12-team playoff, it's hard to see an SEC Championship Game loser missing the playoffs. So you're playing for a first-round bye vs an on-campus home game, or at worst a road playoff game. Those are big stakes for the players, but as a national TV game it loses a lot of luster.

(08-24-2021 08:51 AM)Schema Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 07:54 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I don't see how the scheduling part is going to work either. Clemson for example plays SC annually and then also another SEC school (UGA, LSU, or Oklahoma in the near future) or Notre Dame. I know there are other great teams they can play form the PAC or B1G, but dropping UGA for Nebraska or Southern Cal seems like a strange trade.

If Clemson sticks to their wishes of having seven home games every year, then there is no where on the current schedule to accommodate more home-and-home games until 2038 and beyond. However, if they are willing to sacrifice that seventh home game every other year, then they could play either a B1G or PAC-12 team each year in addition to the already scheduled games against UofSC and Georgia/LSU/Oklahoma/ND. It would be a much tougher schedule, but as a season ticket holder, I'd be happy with losing a seventh home game every other year in order to add some regular season games against schools like Ohio St/Penn St/Michigan/Wisconsin/USC/UCLA/Oregon.

But in the end, there needs to be more money in it for them to agree to the change. And the extra money comes from the ACC saying, "we have this opportunity to upgrade the value of your rights, but only if it is worthwhile to our schools." And ESPN either pays for the upgrade content, or doesn't.

Which is why the Alliance cannot be ONLY about a parity OOC scheduling package ... it has to be about more. Because the parity scheduling package is only a possibility. Maybe it comes together ... and maybe it doesn't.

The negotiation over the CFP12 is a certainty. Of COURSE they are going to threaten to slow walk it. You don't get concessions by gushing about what a great deal you are being offered.

A separate package of rights for QF Bowls. Rose with Big Ten and PAC12 in alternation. Orange with ACC in years it has a bye and there are three QF on NYD, or IOW "when it has a bye and it is allowed by seeding". SEC on the same terms with the Sugar Bowl. The three current access bowls rotate one QF, two SF years. In SF years, the Access bowls have an exhibition bowl with one per conference or independent not in CFP, but must be top four in their conference.

Maybe not that precisely, but along those lines.

(08-24-2021 01:08 PM)BigEastMike Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 12:59 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 12:25 PM)BigEastMike Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 11:01 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 10:30 AM)BigEastMike Wrote:  I think the Big Tens concern for the Rose Bowl is greatly exaggerated by message board posters. National titles and money is what’s most important to not only the Big Ten but all the power conferences.

You say that like those are somehow in tension with each other. We're not talking about the Rose Bowl as an alternative to the CFP, we're talking about the details of how the Rose Bowl fits into the 12 team CFP. The top 4 conference champs get a bye to the quarterfinals--it's not that hard to put in a tweak that ties them to specific bowls.

The Big Ten seems pretty sure that the Rose Bowl *is* money for them.

WAS money for them. You’re assuming they still feel it is or at least worth digging their heels in to protect. All the conferences know that an extended playoff is where the future money of the sport is going to come from and the added importance of games that might not have been so important in seasons past.

I'm a Big Ten guy through and through. It IS (present tense) money for them both tangible (straight up cash) and intangible (the worldwide exposure of the entire Tournament of Roses, including the Parade).

It's easy for the SEC to give up the Sugar Bowl and the ACC to give up the Orange Bowl because those games are completely interchangeable and no one cares about the tie-ins to those games. There aren't tens of millions of people worldwide that wake up on New Year's Day to watch the parade (and corresponding exposure for the participating schools and conferences) that leads into those games. In contrast, the Rose Bowl/Big Ten/Pac-12 relationship has an entirely different and unique value proposition, so what the rest of college football is essentially asking for is the Big Ten and Pac-12 to give something up that no one else has to give up. It's always easy to spend other people's money and, in this case, it's the money of the Big Ten and Pac-12.

I know lots of people outside of the Big Ten and Pac-12 don't think the Rose Bowl should be important or it's getting the way or it shouldn't be critical in the future... but make no mistake about it that the Rose Bowl IS important to those two conferences. We can argue whether that's right or wrong, but it's the truth.

I’m sorry but tens of millions don’t watch the parade. LoL

Except they do, broadcast in 120+ countries

https://tournamentofroses.com/wp-content...es-Kit.pdf

2019 parade had 44 M USA viewers, 28 Million international.

(08-24-2021 01:17 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 12:25 PM)BigEastMike Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 11:01 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 10:30 AM)BigEastMike Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 10:16 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  I don't think the Big Ten is especially opposed to 12 teams.
They're motivated to protect the Rose Bowl and its Big Ten ties, which is do-able with a 12-team structure.
And, more speculatively, they may be motivated to make sure that the 12-team College Football Playoff package goes to market rather than just going to ESPN, maybe motivated to split the package into two pieces.

I think the Big Tens concern for the Rose Bowl is greatly exaggerated by message board posters. National titles and money is what’s most important to not only the Big Ten but all the power conferences.

You say that like those are somehow in tension with each other. We're not talking about the Rose Bowl as an alternative to the CFP, we're talking about the details of how the Rose Bowl fits into the 12 team CFP. The top 4 conference champs get a bye to the quarterfinals--it's not that hard to put in a tweak that ties them to specific bowls.

The Big Ten seems pretty sure that the Rose Bowl *is* money for them.

WAS money for them. You’re assuming they still feel it is or at least worth digging their heels in to protect. All the conferences know that an extended playoff is where the future money of the sport is going to come from and the added importance of games that might not have been so important in seasons past.

Sure. But.....why not both?

A Rose Bowl "Granddaddy of them all" Quarterfinal between a Big Ten champ and a PAc 12 champ, AND a money-vomiting 12 team playoff.

The 12 team playoff isn't really a threat to the Rose Bowl--it's pretty easy to slot in either the Big 10 or PAC-12 champ in the Rose Bowl, depending if it's an even or odd numbered year. It's a little more of a disruption to slot both in every year, assuming they're both Top 4 conference champs.

The 12 team playoff is a big threat to the value of the Big Ten and SEC Championship Games. In a 4 team or 8 team model, those are big games because they're play-in games--the winner is (90%) in, the loser is (90%) out. Even in a 5-1-2 or 6-2 system, the SEC CCG loser isn't guaranteed an at-large bid.

In a 12-team playoff, it's hard to see an SEC Championship Game loser missing the playoffs. So you're playing for a first-round bye vs an on-campus home game, or at worst a road playoff game. Those are big stakes for the players, but as a national TV game it loses a lot of luster.

A 12 team playoff isn’t a threat to either of those games. It will increase the value of both those games especially for the PAC whose CCG has been pretty much meaningless in the playoff era.

(08-24-2021 12:59 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 12:25 PM)BigEastMike Wrote:  WAS money for them. You’re assuming they still feel it is or at least worth digging their heels in to protect. All the conferences know that an extended playoff is where the future money of the sport is going to come from and the added importance of games that might not have been so important in seasons past.

I'm a Big Ten guy through and through. It IS (present tense) money for them both tangible (straight up cash) and intangible (the worldwide exposure of the entire Tournament of Roses, including the Parade).

It's easy for the SEC to give up the Sugar Bowl and the ACC to give up the Orange Bowl because those games are completely interchangeable and no one cares about the tie-ins to those games. There aren't tens of millions of people worldwide that wake up on New Year's Day to watch the parade (and corresponding exposure for the participating schools and conferences) that leads into those games. In contrast, the Rose Bowl/Big Ten/Pac-12 relationship has an entirely different and unique value proposition, so what the rest of college football is essentially asking for is the Big Ten and Pac-12 to give something up that no one else has to give up. It's always easy to spend other people's money and, in this case, it's the money of the Big Ten and Pac-12.

I know lots of people outside of the Big Ten and Pac-12 don't think the Rose Bowl should be important or it's getting the way or it shouldn't be critical in the future... but make no mistake about it that the Rose Bowl IS important to those two conferences. We can argue whether that's right or wrong, but it's the truth.

The Big Ten and PAC-12 had no problem making the rose second fiddle when the BCS came around then again when the playoff came to fruition. Think like a president not like a fan. When was the last time the champs of those two conferences actually played in the game against each other? It’s been nothing but a consolation for a Big Ten team since the playoffs started. When it comes to eyeballs the playoff will always draw more viewers.

(08-24-2021 01:23 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 01:08 PM)BigEastMike Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 12:59 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 12:25 PM)BigEastMike Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 11:01 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  You say that like those are somehow in tension with each other. We're not talking about the Rose Bowl as an alternative to the CFP, we're talking about the details of how the Rose Bowl fits into the 12 team CFP. The top 4 conference champs get a bye to the quarterfinals--it's not that hard to put in a tweak that ties them to specific bowls.

The Big Ten seems pretty sure that the Rose Bowl *is* money for them.

WAS money for them. You’re assuming they still feel it is or at least worth digging their heels in to protect. All the conferences know that an extended playoff is where the future money of the sport is going to come from and the added importance of games that might not have been so important in seasons past.

I'm a Big Ten guy through and through. It IS (present tense) money for them both tangible (straight up cash) and intangible (the worldwide exposure of the entire Tournament of Roses, including the Parade).

It's easy for the SEC to give up the Sugar Bowl and the ACC to give up the Orange Bowl because those games are completely interchangeable and no one cares about the tie-ins to those games. There aren't tens of millions of people worldwide that wake up on New Year's Day to watch the parade (and corresponding exposure for the participating schools and conferences) that leads into those games. In contrast, the Rose Bowl/Big Ten/Pac-12 relationship has an entirely different and unique value proposition, so what the rest of college football is essentially asking for is the Big Ten and Pac-12 to give something up that no one else has to give up. It's always easy to spend other people's money and, in this case, it's the money of the Big Ten and Pac-12.

I know lots of people outside of the Big Ten and Pac-12 don't think the Rose Bowl should be important or it's getting the way or it shouldn't be critical in the future... but make no mistake about it that the Rose Bowl IS important to those two conferences. We can argue whether that's right or wrong, but it's the truth.

I’m sorry but tens of millions don’t watch the parade. LoL

Except they do, broadcast in 120+ countries

https://tournamentofroses.com/wp-content...es-Kit.pdf

2019 parade had 44 M USA viewers, 28 Million international.

I’d like to see actual ratings and not numbers from the rose committee. I’ve seen teams claim sell outs with empty seats clearly visible. I’ve never once watched it and don’t know anyone under 50 who has either.

So we now know:
1) There is no contract that governs any of this.
2) No real focus on growing revenue.
3) No contract or other agreement to prevent one Alliance league from poaching schools from another;
4) No existing non-conference football games with signed contracts will be canceled; and
5) Each league is being cagey about the 12 team playoff but none said they are against it, per se.

What is the point of all of this?

https://twitter.com/CFBHeather/status/14...71653?s=20

(08-24-2021 01:34 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  So we now know:
1) There is no contract that governs any of this.
2) No real focus on growing revenue.
3) No contract or other agreement to prevent one Alliance league from poaching schools from another;
4) No existing non-conference football games with signed contracts will be canceled; and
5) Each league is being cagey about the 12 team playoff but none said they are against it, per se.

What is the point of all of this?

https://twitter.com/CFBHeather/status/14...71653?s=20

Nothing, waste time and grandstand. What a epic fail.

USFFan

Those 3 commissioners came about as close as possible to saying they would not raid the Big12 and will continue to consider the B12 a P5 conference---without actually saying it.

So Clemson is expected to add a Big 10/Pac 12 school annually on top of the 2 SEC/Notre Dame OOC games they have scheduled until 2037 and 8 ACC games?

FSU is in the same boat until 2031

Yeah right

The first 5 stated objectives were corporate political PC.
The 6th, like I stated before was sympathetic to the NCAA.
The 7th an admission that they would seek a legislative way around pay for play as indicated by the SCOTUS 9-0 ruling citing restraint of trade, and also what I said they were after.
The 8th was the only truly football related matter and they are for limiting the playoff structure which of course alienates the G5.

This is nothing more than a social values statement using the CFP to draw attention and contained within it an implied action against players' rights. Typically hypocritical in almost every way. And I might add wholly out of touch with reality as it relates to the players whose welfare they promise to vouchsafe.

(08-24-2021 01:10 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 01:05 PM)chester Wrote:  link

https://pac-12.com/live

They made it possible for me to view the Pac-12 network, so this is already a major improvement.

:) Here's the press release
https://pac-12.com/article/2021/08/24/pa...alliance-0

From the tweet by ESPN's Heather Dinich:

"Kliavkoff said there's no signed contract involved in this "alliance" and there doesn't need to be. There's an agreement between three gentlemen, he said, and 41 ADs and presidents. But nothing on paper that says they won't poach each other's teams."

LOLOLOL (although undoubtedly George Kliavkoff and Jim Phillips would've gladly signed such an "anti-poaching" agreement on the spot).

Chances ACC poaches B1G or PAC: Zero

Chances PAC poaches ACC or B1G: Zero

Chances B1G poaches ACC or PAC: