anybody know ? , cfb playoffs
will it expand to include more teams or stay the same ?
will it include a committee?
asking for a friend...

Do you mean the College Football Playoff? Supposedly the Board of Managers is getting input from presidents and athletic directors and will make a decision "this fall". I swear I saw a September date for when they would meet but I can't find the exact quote now.

This was posted before, I think.

http://www.cbssports.com/college-footbal...uture/amp/

Says late September is next meeting.

Now that Big 12 expansion has "settled", does that make action on the 6+6 proposal more likely? Does it get "rubber-stamped" or do parties go back to the drawing board?

A big part of the "alliance" I believe was "we didn't craft this proposal"... but the only thing I could see the alliance fight to add is AQs. The other (bigger) issue might be a push for only 8 teams (again, with AQs).

(09-16-2021 11:13 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Now that Big 12 expansion has "settled", does that make action on the 6+6 proposal more likely? Does it get "rubber-stamped" or do parties go back to the drawing board?

A big part of the "alliance" I believe was "we didn't craft this proposal"... but the only thing I could see the alliance fight to add is AQs. The other (bigger) issue might be a push for only 8 teams (again, with AQs).

There has been only one consistent theme coming out of the Alliance that I have gathered: maximize the TV money. Believe me - all of those leagues want CFP expansion, but it's more of a matter of whether they're willing to wait another couple of years to ensure that the TV contract to go to the open market (as opposed to only going to ESPN, which would be necessary if they want CFP expansion to occur prior to the current end date).

I don't buy that the complaints of a "17-game season" are going to matter much at the end of the day. If a 12-team playoff makes more money per power conference team than an 8-team playoff, then the 12-team playoff is going to win out.

Now, there are still important issues such as AQs, how key bowl partners like the Rose Bowl are treated in the new system, etc. However, I firmly believe that the 12-team playoff as an overall structural concept is what we'll ultimately see. The biggest thing that the Alliance really cares about (and frankly, I would think everyone from the SEC down to the G5 would care about, too) is figuring out how to maximize the money. No one is leaving money on the table if a 12-team playoff pays out more per conference than an 8-team playoff.

(09-16-2021 11:13 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Now that Big 12 expansion has "settled", does that make action on the 6+6 proposal more likely? Does it get "rubber-stamped" or do parties go back to the drawing board?

A big part of the "alliance" I believe was "we didn't craft this proposal"... but the only thing I could see the alliance fight to add is AQs. The other (bigger) issue might be a push for only 8 teams (again, with AQs).

Yeah i have these questions too, i can imagine not everyone involved will be happy and could lead to further delays

(09-16-2021 10:51 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  anybody know ? , cfb playoffs
will it expand to include more teams or stay the same ?
will it include a committee?
asking for a friend...

It will be announced when Saban, Dabo and Smart bless a new plan.

(09-16-2021 11:41 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 11:13 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Now that Big 12 expansion has "settled", does that make action on the 6+6 proposal more likely? Does it get "rubber-stamped" or do parties go back to the drawing board?

A big part of the "alliance" I believe was "we didn't craft this proposal"... but the only thing I could see the alliance fight to add is AQs. The other (bigger) issue might be a push for only 8 teams (again, with AQs).

There has been only one consistent theme coming out of the Alliance that I have gathered: maximize the TV money. Believe me - all of those leagues want CFP expansion, but it's more of a matter of whether they're willing to wait another couple of years to ensure that the TV contract to go to the open market (as opposed to only going to ESPN, which would be necessary if they want CFP expansion to occur prior to the current end date).

I don't buy that the complaints of a "17-game season" are going to matter much at the end of the day. If a 12-team playoff makes more money per power conference team than an 8-team playoff, then the 12-team playoff is going to win out.

Now, there are still important issues such as AQs, how key bowl partners like the Rose Bowl are treated in the new system, etc. However, I firmly believe that the 12-team playoff as an overall structural concept is what we'll ultimately see. The biggest thing that the Alliance really cares about (and frankly, I would think everyone from the SEC down to the G5 would care about, too) is figuring out how to maximize the money. No one is leaving money on the table if a 12-team playoff pays out more per conference than an 8-team playoff.

Right which it appears they have concluded.

The question is what to do with the conferences that do not get champions into the playoff? Will there be access bowls as part of the system? Would the XII push for that in its reduced state?

(09-16-2021 11:41 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 11:13 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Now that Big 12 expansion has "settled", does that make action on the 6+6 proposal more likely? Does it get "rubber-stamped" or do parties go back to the drawing board?

A big part of the "alliance" I believe was "we didn't craft this proposal"... but the only thing I could see the alliance fight to add is AQs. The other (bigger) issue might be a push for only 8 teams (again, with AQs).

There has been only one consistent theme coming out of the Alliance that I have gathered: maximize the TV money. Believe me - all of those leagues want CFP expansion, but it's more of a matter of whether they're willing to wait another couple of years to ensure that the TV contract to go to the open market (as opposed to only going to ESPN, which would be necessary if they want CFP expansion to occur prior to the current end date).

I don't buy that the complaints of a "17-game season" are going to matter much at the end of the day. If a 12-team playoff makes more money per power conference team than an 8-team playoff, then the 12-team playoff is going to win out.

Now, there are still important issues such as AQs, how key bowl partners like the Rose Bowl are treated in the new system, etc. However, I firmly believe that the 12-team playoff as an overall structural concept is what we'll ultimately see. The biggest thing that the Alliance really cares about (and frankly, I would think everyone from the SEC down to the G5 would care about, too) is figuring out how to maximize the money. No one is leaving money on the table if a 12-team playoff pays out more per conference than an 8-team playoff.

Putting off the start date 3 years probably leaves money on the table they will never get back. Wondering if that is just petty jealousy or if they are posturing for ESPN's benefit. I suspect the former. I never cease to be amazed how business and government leadership has been so willing to show their immaturity in the last few years. Too many yes men around not telling the emperor he has no clothes. Or maybe its just that narcissism is rewarded in the politics of getting to the top positions more so than in the past.

(09-16-2021 12:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 11:41 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 11:13 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Now that Big 12 expansion has "settled", does that make action on the 6+6 proposal more likely? Does it get "rubber-stamped" or do parties go back to the drawing board?

A big part of the "alliance" I believe was "we didn't craft this proposal"... but the only thing I could see the alliance fight to add is AQs. The other (bigger) issue might be a push for only 8 teams (again, with AQs).

There has been only one consistent theme coming out of the Alliance that I have gathered: maximize the TV money. Believe me - all of those leagues want CFP expansion, but it's more of a matter of whether they're willing to wait another couple of years to ensure that the TV contract to go to the open market (as opposed to only going to ESPN, which would be necessary if they want CFP expansion to occur prior to the current end date).

I don't buy that the complaints of a "17-game season" are going to matter much at the end of the day. If a 12-team playoff makes more money per power conference team than an 8-team playoff, then the 12-team playoff is going to win out.

Now, there are still important issues such as AQs, how key bowl partners like the Rose Bowl are treated in the new system, etc. However, I firmly believe that the 12-team playoff as an overall structural concept is what we'll ultimately see. The biggest thing that the Alliance really cares about (and frankly, I would think everyone from the SEC down to the G5 would care about, too) is figuring out how to maximize the money. No one is leaving money on the table if a 12-team playoff pays out more per conference than an 8-team playoff.

Putting off the start date 3 years probably leaves money on the table they will never get back. Wondering if that is just petty jealousy or if they are posturing for ESPN's benefit. I suspect the former. I never cease to be amazed how business and government leadership has been so willing to show their immaturity in the last few years. Too many yes men around not telling the emperor he has no clothes. Or maybe its just that narcissism is rewarded in the politics of getting to the top positions more so than in the past.

How do you figure? Getting an expanded playoff to the open market where multiple networks can bid on your product will inevitably drive up the price of that product.

I assume ESPN would bargain in good faith and pay good money for an expanded playoff, but there is not a chance in hell that they would pay anywhere near as much as they will with multiple networks bidding.

So given your logic, if they were to push this forward now, they would lose money over 10-15 years that they could never get back. Patience is a virtue.

(09-16-2021 12:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 11:41 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  There has been only one consistent theme coming out of the Alliance that I have gathered: maximize the TV money. Believe me - all of those leagues want CFP expansion, but it's more of a matter of whether they're willing to wait another couple of years to ensure that the TV contract to go to the open market (as opposed to only going to ESPN, which would be necessary if they want CFP expansion to occur prior to the current end date).

Putting off the start date 3 years probably leaves money on the table they will never get back.

And not taking it to market is likely reducing the income per year over a 12 year contract.

(09-16-2021 12:22 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 12:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 11:41 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  There has been only one consistent theme coming out of the Alliance that I have gathered: maximize the TV money. Believe me - all of those leagues want CFP expansion, but it's more of a matter of whether they're willing to wait another couple of years to ensure that the TV contract to go to the open market (as opposed to only going to ESPN, which would be necessary if they want CFP expansion to occur prior to the current end date).

Putting off the start date 3 years probably leaves money on the table they will never get back.

And not taking it to market is likely reducing the income per year over a 12 year contract.

Some are talking $500 million a year. That's $1.5 billion that you have permanently lost. And it will be 3 extra years before you start making any of that up. There is a time value to money. To keep it simple, assume 10% annual interest. That $1.5 billion is worth $1.82 billion in just 3 years.

And the stupidity of this, is that ESPN will certainly be willing to do a short term deal in order to make money now. Its not an ego thing for them.

what about the cfb playoff committee, wonder if they will still be espn’s tool to decide the best tv match ups or if in week 10 the committee says a 7 & 3 georgia is ranked higher than an undefeated georgia tech because georgia clearly recruited better and SOS ...

(09-16-2021 11:41 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The biggest thing that the Alliance really cares about (and frankly, I would think everyone from the SEC down to the G5 would care about, too) is figuring out how to maximize the money.

That's true, and "maximizing the money" includes conference TV money, not just the playoff money. Wanting the expanded playoff to not be the exclusive property of ESPN is about wanting strong competition for conference TV contracts from another network or two who has a stake in the playoff.

(09-16-2021 12:42 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 11:41 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The biggest thing that the Alliance really cares about (and frankly, I would think everyone from the SEC down to the G5 would care about, too) is figuring out how to maximize the money.

That's true, and "maximizing the money" includes conference TV money, not just the playoff money. Wanting the expanded playoff to not be the exclusive property of ESPN is about wanting strong competition for conference TV contracts from another network or two who has a stake in the playoff.

yes this is what aim thinking, and if this is whats really happening then i would think they want as many playoff games as possible but the sec will push back on this
Prez Nixon in multiple interviews repeatedly said that cfb needs to have a real playoffs, nixon having said this right after handing over the championship trophy to #1 texas at half time over #2 arkansas... imagine that !

(09-16-2021 12:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 12:22 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 12:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 11:41 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  There has been only one consistent theme coming out of the Alliance that I have gathered: maximize the TV money. Believe me - all of those leagues want CFP expansion, but it's more of a matter of whether they're willing to wait another couple of years to ensure that the TV contract to go to the open market (as opposed to only going to ESPN, which would be necessary if they want CFP expansion to occur prior to the current end date).

Putting off the start date 3 years probably leaves money on the table they will never get back.

And not taking it to market is likely reducing the income per year over a 12 year contract.

Some are talking $500 million a year. That's $1.5 billion that you have permanently lost. And it will be 3 extra years before you start making any of that up. There is a time value to money. To keep it simple, assume 10% annual interest. That $1.5 billion is worth $1.82 billion in just 3 years.

Oh - I absolutely agree. I honestly think that it would be nuts for the powers that be to allow the current contract to expire and wait another 5 years for playoff expansion due to the time value of money issue that you've noted. Money now is worth more than money in the future. ESPN is the party with the most money to pay everyone, anyway - I don't understand making them into a boogeyman in this process.

From Mercury news:

“I’m not sure 12 is the number I would choose,’’ George said. “It’s too many games. We’re collecting information and at some point, the conference will come out with a decision. But I’m not sure 12 is right.”

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/09/15/c...g-forward/

It looks to me that the 12 team format is still a front runner but not a done deal. The average money per power conference is an important metric. But in the end, the money for your own conference and the “relative” share of the total money for your conference is more important. Even if your income is doubled, it doesn’t mean much if your rivals’ income gets trippled and they take all the good coaches.