Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
CFP Expansion: Hancock says new plan must be agreed to in 3 to 4 months, or ...
Author Message
johnbragg Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 10,749
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 457
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #21
RE: CFP Expansion: Hancock says new plan must be agreed to in 3 to 4 months, or ...
(09-29-2021 09:34 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 09:15 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 09:02 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Maybe I'm too dense to understand, but I don't quite get the need to only move at the end of a cycle. Couldn't the "next schools up" just get first dibs on the semifinals of a 12 team playoff? What am I missing?

As the trailer I saw for the Handmaid's Tale series said, "Better doesn't mean better for everyone."

The CFP is a complicated contract between the 10 FBS conferences, Notre Dame, the 6 major bowls, and ESPN. Those aren't all equal partners, but any of those has grounds to sue if their rights under the current contract are voided.

The bowls can argue in court that they signed on the dotted line to host SEMIFINALS once every three years, not just "playoff games." That's worth a very hard to calculate but surely very large amount of money.

The Rose and Sugar Bowls, and I suppose the Orange Bowl, have big contracts with the major conferences that secure big, free-spending fanbases coming to their bowl after a good season with regularity. You mess with the pecking order of who goes to what bowl because the Sugar Bowl gets the #4 SEC team instead of #3, the Sugar Bowl will be able to put together a powerpoint about how much money the Sugar Bowl is losing.

That's the long-winded answer to why this probably happens at the end of the contract.

Thanks. Still doesn't make that much sense to me, but I guess that's why they get paid the big bucks.

Shorter version: Since 2012 or so when the CFP was negotiated, the bowls have lost a lot of power and relevance (except maybe Rose). So the bowls are likely to monkeywrench new arrangements that reflect their diminished clout.

The bowls have every legal right to do that, and no reason not to.
(This post was last modified: 09-29-2021 09:53 AM by johnbragg.)
09-29-2021 09:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 41,494
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1479
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #22
RE: CFP Expansion: Hancock says new plan must be agreed to in 3 to 4 months, or ...
(09-29-2021 09:53 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 09:34 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 09:15 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 09:02 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Maybe I'm too dense to understand, but I don't quite get the need to only move at the end of a cycle. Couldn't the "next schools up" just get first dibs on the semifinals of a 12 team playoff? What am I missing?

As the trailer I saw for the Handmaid's Tale series said, "Better doesn't mean better for everyone."

The CFP is a complicated contract between the 10 FBS conferences, Notre Dame, the 6 major bowls, and ESPN. Those aren't all equal partners, but any of those has grounds to sue if their rights under the current contract are voided.

The bowls can argue in court that they signed on the dotted line to host SEMIFINALS once every three years, not just "playoff games." That's worth a very hard to calculate but surely very large amount of money.

The Rose and Sugar Bowls, and I suppose the Orange Bowl, have big contracts with the major conferences that secure big, free-spending fanbases coming to their bowl after a good season with regularity. You mess with the pecking order of who goes to what bowl because the Sugar Bowl gets the #4 SEC team instead of #3, the Sugar Bowl will be able to put together a powerpoint about how much money the Sugar Bowl is losing.

That's the long-winded answer to why this probably happens at the end of the contract.

Thanks. Still doesn't make that much sense to me, but I guess that's why they get paid the big bucks.

Shorter version: Since 2012 or so when the CFP was negotiated, the bowls have lost a lot of power and relevance (except maybe Rose). So the bowls are likely to monkeywrench new arrangements that reflect their diminished clout.

The bowls have every legal right to do that, and no reason not to.

FWIW, I don't think the bowls have experienced diminished power and relevance. TV ratings might be down, but TV ratings are down for a lot of things (e.g., the World Series and NBA Finals have trended down the last 20 years). The brand value of the major bowls, at least the four traditional ones, IMO remains strong, and surely the Cotton and Peach bowls are more valuable thanks to their inclusion in the CFP.

As for the minor bowls, to me, they remain what they always have been, minor, but liked, otherwise ESPN wouldn't be showing 20 of them each Christmas season.
09-29-2021 10:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 10,749
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 457
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #23
RE: CFP Expansion: Hancock says new plan must be agreed to in 3 to 4 months, or ...
(09-29-2021 09:45 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 09:09 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 08:00 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 06:49 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I’ve said it elsewhere. It’s too much too fast. I’m shocked it could have changed before the end of the contract. It won’t. It will run its course.

It’s not just the conferences who weren’t in the room that would pump the brakes on this. The bowls had to respond accordingly, too. And for the ones that have good relationships with some of these conferences, there would be more wagon-circling.

I'll be the optimist here (as someone that unabashedly wants to see this expanded playoff happen): I think it will get done and passed before the end of the year. Even two extra years of increased money in the bag playoff revenue is too much to pass up for everyone here. Schools are really going to pass that up when they're moving around in conference realignment at the G5 levels for increased money that's honestly going to be a fraction of what they'll get from an expanded playoff where the 99% of the teams won't even be participating in? Schools are really going to pass that up when even the SEC had to advance money to its members against future projected revenue in order to cover pandemic-related losses? This entire forum is effectively dedicated to how colleges and conferences can maximize revenue, yet they're really going to pass up on the easiest revenue-maker of them all?

It can't be overstated how this is possibly the easiest revenue generator in modern sports history. It's akin to the American League and National League figuring out that they could play the World Series or the old AFL and NFL figuring out that they could play a Super Bowl... only it's taken college football until 2021 to get to that point. I refuse to believe that the powers that be can't figure this out when push comes to shove with this much money on the table.

Gonna play the eternal devil's advocate, just to see what happens.

The 6+6 format gives you 11 valuable games. 1 NCG, 2 semifinals, 4 QF, 4 first-round games.
But that comes at the expense of the current system which has 7 games of comparable value. 1 NCG, 6 New Years Day/Eve bowls.

You're adding 4 first-round games in mid-December. Which has to work around the NFL somehow, or just compete with the NFL regular season Saturday games.
And you're adding 2 semi-finals in January. Which have to work around the NFL playoffs somehow.
You're reducing the value of the 5th and 6th New Years Six bowl games.

It's MORE valuable, but is it double the CFP? 150%? I don't know. ESPN probably knows. But I don't think the B1G and PAC trust ESPN, especially if the number isn't double the current CFP.

Based on ratings, you only have 3 games of comparable value. The other 4 NY6 are a big step below. It just doesn't mean more.

But they're a big step ABOVE the (don't call it the) Citrus Bowl or the #8 or #9 bowls.

We don't know how the audiences for the non-semifinal NY6 games will compare to the audiences for the first-round games.
09-29-2021 10:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Renandpat Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 788
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 23
I Root For: Central State
Location:
Post: #24
RE: CFP Expansion: Hancock says new plan must be agreed to in 3 to 4 months, or ...
Sorry, Bill Hancock, doing what you want and not taking the product to an open market is what got your former employer stuck with an undervalued NCAA Tournament deal through 2032. Plus, writers are correct in mentioning that locking in with ESPN limits future regular season monies from those not ESPN, be it Fox or any of the FAANG five companies.
09-29-2021 10:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 10,749
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 457
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #25
RE: CFP Expansion: Hancock says new plan must be agreed to in 3 to 4 months, or ...
(09-29-2021 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 09:53 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 09:34 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 09:15 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 09:02 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Maybe I'm too dense to understand, but I don't quite get the need to only move at the end of a cycle. Couldn't the "next schools up" just get first dibs on the semifinals of a 12 team playoff? What am I missing?

As the trailer I saw for the Handmaid's Tale series said, "Better doesn't mean better for everyone."

The CFP is a complicated contract between the 10 FBS conferences, Notre Dame, the 6 major bowls, and ESPN. Those aren't all equal partners, but any of those has grounds to sue if their rights under the current contract are voided.

The bowls can argue in court that they signed on the dotted line to host SEMIFINALS once every three years, not just "playoff games." That's worth a very hard to calculate but surely very large amount of money.

The Rose and Sugar Bowls, and I suppose the Orange Bowl, have big contracts with the major conferences that secure big, free-spending fanbases coming to their bowl after a good season with regularity. You mess with the pecking order of who goes to what bowl because the Sugar Bowl gets the #4 SEC team instead of #3, the Sugar Bowl will be able to put together a powerpoint about how much money the Sugar Bowl is losing.

That's the long-winded answer to why this probably happens at the end of the contract.

Thanks. Still doesn't make that much sense to me, but I guess that's why they get paid the big bucks.

Shorter version: Since 2012 or so when the CFP was negotiated, the bowls have lost a lot of power and relevance (except maybe Rose). So the bowls are likely to monkeywrench new arrangements that reflect their diminished clout.

The bowls have every legal right to do that, and no reason not to.

FWIW, I don't think the bowls have experienced diminished power and relevance. TV ratings might be down, but TV ratings are down for a lot of things (e.g., the World Series and NBA Finals have trended down the last 20 years). The brand value of the major bowls, at least the four traditional ones, IMO remains strong, and surely the Cotton and Peach bowls are more valuable thanks to their inclusion in the CFP.

As for the minor bowls, to me, they remain what they always have been, minor, but liked, otherwise ESPN wouldn't be showing 20 of them each Christmas season.

I don't think the brand value of the Sugar or Orange Bowls is what it was 10 years ago. (Or more exactly, what it was 25 years ago.) Ten years ago, the new CFP system preserved the power and prestige of the those bowls, and yes elevated the Cotton and Peach bowls. The current CFP reflects the brand value of the bowls in about 1995-2000, if that makes any sense.

The Rose Bowl is a different deal. The PAC and B1G will do things to defend the Rose Bowl. That tells me that they have information that the Rose Bowl is independently valuable. (YEs, Frank the Tank, I know the arguments about the parade. But for me, the proof is that the B1G consistenly makes statements that would have them pay some kind of price to keep the Rose Bowl the Rose Bowl).

Ten years ago, Mike Slive and the SEC signed the Champions Bowl with the Big 12, and entertained the idea of having it somewhere besides the Sugar Bowl.

The SEC DGAF about the "Sugar Bowl." It's a big game. You can have a big game in New Orleans or Atlanta or JerryWorld or Miami or a couple of other places and it's fine. The Sugar Bowl name or the Orange Bowl name isn't magic anymore. The Peach Bowl name isn't magic--it wasn't even the PEach Bowl for a while. The Cotton Bowl stopped being magic when the SWC went bust. The Fiesta Bowl stopped being magic when the Big 12 dumped them for the Cotton Bowl. (I mean the Sugar Bowl)

You don't need the Sugar Bowl, Inc or Orange Bowl Entertainment LTD or Cotton Bowl Enterprises. If #3 Georgia is playing #7 Oregon, it doesn't really really matter if the game is in Miami or Atlanta or Dallas or New Orleans or Houston or even Charlotte or Nashville; or in Los Angeles or Las Vegas or Phoenix. You just need a nice NFL stadium.

25 years ago, you'd have had howls of protest at a new playoff system that junked the Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton bowls. Now, the only protests are about what happens to the Rose Bowl.

The fact that walking away completely from the non-Rose Bowls is an option is going to impact the bowls in the next CFP round. The bowls won't get left out completely, but they'll get much less than they got last time. I don't know if the quarterfinals rotate between 6 bowls, for example. So 2 of the 6 get demoted back to Citrus Bowl status. Probably.
(This post was last modified: 09-29-2021 10:46 AM by johnbragg.)
09-29-2021 10:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,561
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 785
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #26
RE: CFP Expansion: Hancock says new plan must be agreed to in 3 to 4 months, or ...
(09-29-2021 10:22 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 09:45 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 09:09 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 08:00 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 06:49 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I’ve said it elsewhere. It’s too much too fast. I’m shocked it could have changed before the end of the contract. It won’t. It will run its course.

It’s not just the conferences who weren’t in the room that would pump the brakes on this. The bowls had to respond accordingly, too. And for the ones that have good relationships with some of these conferences, there would be more wagon-circling.

I'll be the optimist here (as someone that unabashedly wants to see this expanded playoff happen): I think it will get done and passed before the end of the year. Even two extra years of increased money in the bag playoff revenue is too much to pass up for everyone here. Schools are really going to pass that up when they're moving around in conference realignment at the G5 levels for increased money that's honestly going to be a fraction of what they'll get from an expanded playoff where the 99% of the teams won't even be participating in? Schools are really going to pass that up when even the SEC had to advance money to its members against future projected revenue in order to cover pandemic-related losses? This entire forum is effectively dedicated to how colleges and conferences can maximize revenue, yet they're really going to pass up on the easiest revenue-maker of them all?

It can't be overstated how this is possibly the easiest revenue generator in modern sports history. It's akin to the American League and National League figuring out that they could play the World Series or the old AFL and NFL figuring out that they could play a Super Bowl... only it's taken college football until 2021 to get to that point. I refuse to believe that the powers that be can't figure this out when push comes to shove with this much money on the table.

Gonna play the eternal devil's advocate, just to see what happens.

The 6+6 format gives you 11 valuable games. 1 NCG, 2 semifinals, 4 QF, 4 first-round games.
But that comes at the expense of the current system which has 7 games of comparable value. 1 NCG, 6 New Years Day/Eve bowls.

You're adding 4 first-round games in mid-December. Which has to work around the NFL somehow, or just compete with the NFL regular season Saturday games.
And you're adding 2 semi-finals in January. Which have to work around the NFL playoffs somehow.
You're reducing the value of the 5th and 6th New Years Six bowl games.

It's MORE valuable, but is it double the CFP? 150%? I don't know. ESPN probably knows. But I don't think the B1G and PAC trust ESPN, especially if the number isn't double the current CFP.

Based on ratings, you only have 3 games of comparable value. The other 4 NY6 are a big step below. It just doesn't mean more.

But they're a big step ABOVE the (don't call it the) Citrus Bowl or the #8 or #9 bowls.

We don't know how the audiences for the non-semifinal NY6 games will compare to the audiences for the first-round games.

That's the thing: it's actually not true.

For example, the Citrus Bowl has had higher ratings than at least one non-semifinal NY6 bowl in 4 of the 7 years of the CFP era so far. In 2019, the Citrus Bowl (with an Alabama-Michigan matchup) actually had a higher rating than *all* of the bowl games other than the playoff games and the Rose Bowl.

This is another wrinkle to the CFP TV discussions. For all of the talk that parties are worried about ESPN supposedly underpaying for an expanded CFP, the flip side is ESPN is currently paying a huge premium for non-playoff NY6 games that (other than the Rose Bowl) are legitimately not worth more than the much less expensive Citrus Bowl. That scheme doesn't seem to be sustainable, which is another incentive to get an expanded playoff system into place. The Rose Bowl has value, but all of the other NY6 bowls are fairly indistinguishable from each other and a good Big Ten-SEC matchup in the Citrus Bowl has shown to be on par or better in the ratings.
09-29-2021 10:42 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 41,494
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1479
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #27
RE: CFP Expansion: Hancock says new plan must be agreed to in 3 to 4 months, or ...
(09-29-2021 10:39 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 09:53 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 09:34 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 09:15 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  As the trailer I saw for the Handmaid's Tale series said, "Better doesn't mean better for everyone."

The CFP is a complicated contract between the 10 FBS conferences, Notre Dame, the 6 major bowls, and ESPN. Those aren't all equal partners, but any of those has grounds to sue if their rights under the current contract are voided.

The bowls can argue in court that they signed on the dotted line to host SEMIFINALS once every three years, not just "playoff games." That's worth a very hard to calculate but surely very large amount of money.

The Rose and Sugar Bowls, and I suppose the Orange Bowl, have big contracts with the major conferences that secure big, free-spending fanbases coming to their bowl after a good season with regularity. You mess with the pecking order of who goes to what bowl because the Sugar Bowl gets the #4 SEC team instead of #3, the Sugar Bowl will be able to put together a powerpoint about how much money the Sugar Bowl is losing.

That's the long-winded answer to why this probably happens at the end of the contract.

Thanks. Still doesn't make that much sense to me, but I guess that's why they get paid the big bucks.

Shorter version: Since 2012 or so when the CFP was negotiated, the bowls have lost a lot of power and relevance (except maybe Rose). So the bowls are likely to monkeywrench new arrangements that reflect their diminished clout.

The bowls have every legal right to do that, and no reason not to.

FWIW, I don't think the bowls have experienced diminished power and relevance. TV ratings might be down, but TV ratings are down for a lot of things (e.g., the World Series and NBA Finals have trended down the last 20 years). The brand value of the major bowls, at least the four traditional ones, IMO remains strong, and surely the Cotton and Peach bowls are more valuable thanks to their inclusion in the CFP.

As for the minor bowls, to me, they remain what they always have been, minor, but liked, otherwise ESPN wouldn't be showing 20 of them each Christmas season.

I don't think the brand value of the Sugar or Orange Bowls is what it was 10 years ago. (Or more exactly, what it was 25 years ago.) Ten years ago, the new CFP system preserved the power and prestige of the those bowls, and yes elevated the Cotton and Peach bowls. The current CFP reflects the brand value of the bowls in about 1995-2000, if that makes any sense.

The Rose Bowl is a different deal. The PAC and B1G will do things to defend the Rose Bowl. That tells me that they have information that the Rose Bowl is independently valuable. (YEs, Frank the Tank, I know the arguments about the parade. But for me, the proof is that the B1G consistenly makes statements that would have them pay some kind of price to keep the Rose Bowl the Rose Bowl).

Ten years ago, Mike Slive and the SEC signed the Champions Bowl with the Big 12, and entertained the idea of having it somewhere besides the Sugar Bowl.

The SEC DGAF about the "Sugar Bowl." It's a big game. You can have a big game in New Orleans or Atlanta or JerryWorld or Miami or a couple of other places and it's fine. The Sugar Bowl name or the Orange Bowl name isn't magic anymore. The Peach Bowl name isn't magic--it wasn't even the PEach Bowl for a while. The Cotton Bowl stopped being magic when the SWC went bust. The Fiesta Bowl stopped being magic when the Big 12 dumped them for the Cotton Bowl. (I mean the Sugar Bowl)

You don't need the Sugar Bowl, Inc or Orange Bowl Entertainment LTD or Cotton Bowl Enterprises. If #3 Georgia is playing #7 Oregon, it doesn't really really matter if the game is in Miami or Atlanta or Dallas or New Orleans or Houston or even Charlotte or Nashville; or in Los Angeles or Las Vegas or Phoenix. You just need a nice NFL stadium.

25 years ago, you'd have had howls of protest at a new playoff system that junked the Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton bowls. Now, the only protests are about what happens to the Rose Bowl.

The fact that walking away completely from the non-Rose Bowls is an option is going to impact the bowls in the next CFP round. The bowls won't get left out completely, but they'll get much less than they got last time. I don't know if the quarterfinals rotate between 6 bowls, for example. So 2 of the 6 get demoted back to Citrus Bowl status. Probably.

I agree that the Orange Bowl has been diminished by its association with the ACC, but I think the SEC does care about the Sugar Bowl.

That's why the "Champion's Bowl" idea lasted about 10 minutes before it became the Sugar Bowl. The difference was, whereas with the Rose Bowl, the two participants, the PAC and the B1G, were obviously in total accord about their feature game being the Rose Bowl, the SEC was dealing with the Big 12, which had not historically participated in the Sugar Bowl, and probably wanted the game to be played in the Cotton Bowl, or maybe rotate between the Cotton Bowl and the Sugar Bowl. So that took some sorting out that the Rose Bowl situation did not.

Of course, the result of that sorting was that the SEC, being more powerful, and wanting to maintain its relationship with the Sugar Bowl, decided it would be ... the Sugar Bowl.

That's how I think it played out, anyway, and IMO that means the SEC values the Sugar Bowl. I know down here in Louisiana, a berth in the Sugar Bowl still matters to people.
(This post was last modified: 09-29-2021 12:39 PM by quo vadis.)
09-29-2021 12:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 10,749
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 457
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #28
RE: CFP Expansion: Hancock says new plan must be agreed to in 3 to 4 months, or ...
(09-29-2021 12:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 10:39 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 09:53 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 09:34 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Thanks. Still doesn't make that much sense to me, but I guess that's why they get paid the big bucks.

Shorter version: Since 2012 or so when the CFP was negotiated, the bowls have lost a lot of power and relevance (except maybe Rose). So the bowls are likely to monkeywrench new arrangements that reflect their diminished clout.

The bowls have every legal right to do that, and no reason not to.

FWIW, I don't think the bowls have experienced diminished power and relevance. TV ratings might be down, but TV ratings are down for a lot of things (e.g., the World Series and NBA Finals have trended down the last 20 years). The brand value of the major bowls, at least the four traditional ones, IMO remains strong, and surely the Cotton and Peach bowls are more valuable thanks to their inclusion in the CFP.

As for the minor bowls, to me, they remain what they always have been, minor, but liked, otherwise ESPN wouldn't be showing 20 of them each Christmas season.

I don't think the brand value of the Sugar or Orange Bowls is what it was 10 years ago. (Or more exactly, what it was 25 years ago.) Ten years ago, the new CFP system preserved the power and prestige of the those bowls, and yes elevated the Cotton and Peach bowls. The current CFP reflects the brand value of the bowls in about 1995-2000, if that makes any sense.

The Rose Bowl is a different deal. The PAC and B1G will do things to defend the Rose Bowl. That tells me that they have information that the Rose Bowl is independently valuable. (YEs, Frank the Tank, I know the arguments about the parade. But for me, the proof is that the B1G consistenly makes statements that would have them pay some kind of price to keep the Rose Bowl the Rose Bowl).

Ten years ago, Mike Slive and the SEC signed the Champions Bowl with the Big 12, and entertained the idea of having it somewhere besides the Sugar Bowl.

The SEC DGAF about the "Sugar Bowl." It's a big game. You can have a big game in New Orleans or Atlanta or JerryWorld or Miami or a couple of other places and it's fine. The Sugar Bowl name or the Orange Bowl name isn't magic anymore. The Peach Bowl name isn't magic--it wasn't even the PEach Bowl for a while. The Cotton Bowl stopped being magic when the SWC went bust. The Fiesta Bowl stopped being magic when the Big 12 dumped them for the Cotton Bowl. (I mean the Sugar Bowl)

You don't need the Sugar Bowl, Inc or Orange Bowl Entertainment LTD or Cotton Bowl Enterprises. If #3 Georgia is playing #7 Oregon, it doesn't really really matter if the game is in Miami or Atlanta or Dallas or New Orleans or Houston or even Charlotte or Nashville; or in Los Angeles or Las Vegas or Phoenix. You just need a nice NFL stadium.

25 years ago, you'd have had howls of protest at a new playoff system that junked the Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton bowls. Now, the only protests are about what happens to the Rose Bowl.

The fact that walking away completely from the non-Rose Bowls is an option is going to impact the bowls in the next CFP round. The bowls won't get left out completely, but they'll get much less than they got last time. I don't know if the quarterfinals rotate between 6 bowls, for example. So 2 of the 6 get demoted back to Citrus Bowl status. Probably.

I agree that the Orange Bowl has been diminished by its association with the ACC, but I think the SEC does care about the Sugar Bowl.

That's why the "Champion's Bowl" idea lasted about 10 minutes before it became the Sugar Bowl. The difference was, whereas with the Rose Bowl, the two participants, the PAC and the B1G, were obviously in total accord about their feature game being the Rose Bowl, the SEC was dealing with the Big 12, which had not historically participated in the Sugar Bowl, and probably wanted the game to be played in the Cotton Bowl, or maybe rotate between the Cotton Bowl and the Sugar Bowl. So that took some sorting out that the Rose Bowl situation did not.

Of course, the result of that sorting was that the SEC, being more powerful, and wanting to maintain its relationship with the Sugar Bowl, decided it would be ... the Sugar Bowl.

That's how I think it played out, anyway, and IMO that means the SEC values the Sugar Bowl. I know down here in Louisiana, a berth in the Sugar Bowl still matters to people.

I don't know. 10 years ago, Slive was talking about "straight 8."
09-29-2021 01:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,798
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 85
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #29
RE: CFP Expansion: Hancock says new plan must be agreed to in 3 to 4 months, or ...
(09-29-2021 10:42 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 10:22 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 09:45 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 09:09 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 08:00 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I'll be the optimist here (as someone that unabashedly wants to see this expanded playoff happen): I think it will get done and passed before the end of the year. Even two extra years of increased money in the bag playoff revenue is too much to pass up for everyone here. Schools are really going to pass that up when they're moving around in conference realignment at the G5 levels for increased money that's honestly going to be a fraction of what they'll get from an expanded playoff where the 99% of the teams won't even be participating in? Schools are really going to pass that up when even the SEC had to advance money to its members against future projected revenue in order to cover pandemic-related losses? This entire forum is effectively dedicated to how colleges and conferences can maximize revenue, yet they're really going to pass up on the easiest revenue-maker of them all?

It can't be overstated how this is possibly the easiest revenue generator in modern sports history. It's akin to the American League and National League figuring out that they could play the World Series or the old AFL and NFL figuring out that they could play a Super Bowl... only it's taken college football until 2021 to get to that point. I refuse to believe that the powers that be can't figure this out when push comes to shove with this much money on the table.

Gonna play the eternal devil's advocate, just to see what happens.

The 6+6 format gives you 11 valuable games. 1 NCG, 2 semifinals, 4 QF, 4 first-round games.
But that comes at the expense of the current system which has 7 games of comparable value. 1 NCG, 6 New Years Day/Eve bowls.

You're adding 4 first-round games in mid-December. Which has to work around the NFL somehow, or just compete with the NFL regular season Saturday games.
And you're adding 2 semi-finals in January. Which have to work around the NFL playoffs somehow.
You're reducing the value of the 5th and 6th New Years Six bowl games.

It's MORE valuable, but is it double the CFP? 150%? I don't know. ESPN probably knows. But I don't think the B1G and PAC trust ESPN, especially if the number isn't double the current CFP.

Based on ratings, you only have 3 games of comparable value. The other 4 NY6 are a big step below. It just doesn't mean more.

But they're a big step ABOVE the (don't call it the) Citrus Bowl or the #8 or #9 bowls.

We don't know how the audiences for the non-semifinal NY6 games will compare to the audiences for the first-round games.

That's the thing: it's actually not true.

For example, the Citrus Bowl has had higher ratings than at least one non-semifinal NY6 bowl in 4 of the 7 years of the CFP era so far. In 2019, the Citrus Bowl (with an Alabama-Michigan matchup) actually had a higher rating than *all* of the bowl games other than the playoff games and the Rose Bowl.

This is another wrinkle to the CFP TV discussions. For all of the talk that parties are worried about ESPN supposedly underpaying for an expanded CFP, the flip side is ESPN is currently paying a huge premium for non-playoff NY6 games that (other than the Rose Bowl) are legitimately not worth more than the much less expensive Citrus Bowl. That scheme doesn't seem to be sustainable, which is another incentive to get an expanded playoff system into place. The Rose Bowl has value, but all of the other NY6 bowls are fairly indistinguishable from each other and a good Big Ten-SEC matchup in the Citrus Bowl has shown to be on par or better in the ratings.

What do you do with the bowls then? If the bowls are also lower value relative to the playoff what is prohibiting all 10 conference from at least being guaranteed a major bowl game for their champion?

The MWC, CUSA, SBC, MAC would trade some money for a good bowl game. They don't need an extra $6 million for team travel to an access bowl.
09-29-2021 01:40 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 10,749
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 457
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #30
RE: CFP Expansion: Hancock says new plan must be agreed to in 3 to 4 months, or ...
(09-29-2021 01:40 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 10:42 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 10:22 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 09:45 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 09:09 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Gonna play the eternal devil's advocate, just to see what happens.

The 6+6 format gives you 11 valuable games. 1 NCG, 2 semifinals, 4 QF, 4 first-round games.
But that comes at the expense of the current system which has 7 games of comparable value. 1 NCG, 6 New Years Day/Eve bowls.

You're adding 4 first-round games in mid-December. Which has to work around the NFL somehow, or just compete with the NFL regular season Saturday games.
And you're adding 2 semi-finals in January. Which have to work around the NFL playoffs somehow.
You're reducing the value of the 5th and 6th New Years Six bowl games.

It's MORE valuable, but is it double the CFP? 150%? I don't know. ESPN probably knows. But I don't think the B1G and PAC trust ESPN, especially if the number isn't double the current CFP.

Based on ratings, you only have 3 games of comparable value. The other 4 NY6 are a big step below. It just doesn't mean more.

But they're a big step ABOVE the (don't call it the) Citrus Bowl or the #8 or #9 bowls.

We don't know how the audiences for the non-semifinal NY6 games will compare to the audiences for the first-round games.

That's the thing: it's actually not true.

For example, the Citrus Bowl has had higher ratings than at least one non-semifinal NY6 bowl in 4 of the 7 years of the CFP era so far. In 2019, the Citrus Bowl (with an Alabama-Michigan matchup) actually had a higher rating than *all* of the bowl games other than the playoff games and the Rose Bowl.

This is another wrinkle to the CFP TV discussions. For all of the talk that parties are worried about ESPN supposedly underpaying for an expanded CFP, the flip side is ESPN is currently paying a huge premium for non-playoff NY6 games that (other than the Rose Bowl) are legitimately not worth more than the much less expensive Citrus Bowl. That scheme doesn't seem to be sustainable, which is another incentive to get an expanded playoff system into place. The Rose Bowl has value, but all of the other NY6 bowls are fairly indistinguishable from each other and a good Big Ten-SEC matchup in the Citrus Bowl has shown to be on par or better in the ratings.

What do you do with the bowls then? If the bowls are also lower value relative to the playoff what is prohibiting all 10 conference from at least being guaranteed a major bowl game for their champion?

The MWC, CUSA, SBC, MAC would trade some money for a good bowl game. They don't need an extra $6 million for team travel to an access bowl.

Because if those champions are in a game, it's not a major bowl? Most years, if you put the CUSA champ and the MAC champ in the Superdome or JerryWorld or wherever, you get a half-empty stadium?
09-29-2021 01:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CardinalJim Offline
Welcome to The New Age
*

Posts: 12,504
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 1682
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Fairdale, KY
Post: #31
RE: CFP Expansion: Hancock says new plan must be agreed to in 3 to 4 months, or ...
It’s not surprising Hancock would be pushing for a hasty decision. Hancock probably has his hand deep in ESPN’s pocket and he’s being pressured to get this done for them.

The best proposal:

Eight spots with automatic bids for every P5 conference, a bid for the best of AAC/MW, a bid for the best of SB/CUSA/MAC and a bid for the ND/Next Best Conference Runner-up.

The only way The Alliance and Group of 5 conferences should go for 12 is a limit of two teams from any conference.

If The SEC and Notre Dame don’t agree to The Alliance and G5 terms, we wait until the end of the contract which I prefer. The linked article reminded me of a wise quote from Businessman Howard Newton

“People forget how fast you did a job – but they remember how well you did it”
(This post was last modified: 09-29-2021 01:56 PM by CardinalJim.)
09-29-2021 01:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 41,494
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1479
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #32
RE: CFP Expansion: Hancock says new plan must be agreed to in 3 to 4 months, or ...
(09-29-2021 01:54 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  It’s not surprising Hancock would be pushing for a hasty decision. Hancock probably has his hand deep in ESPN’s pocket and he’s being pressured to get this done for them.

The best proposal:

Eight spots with automatic bids for every P5 conference, a bid for the best of AAC/MW, a bid for the best of SB/CUSA/MAC and a bid for the ND/Next Best Conference Runner-up.

The only way The Alliance and Group of 5 conferences should go for 12 is a limit of two teams from any conference.

If The SEC and Notre Dame don’t agree to The Alliance and G5 terms, we wait until the end of the contract which I prefer. The linked article reminded me of a wise quote from Businessman Howard Newton

“People forget how fast you did a job – but they remember how well you did it”

I think the wise thing to do is the original 12-team playoff proposal. That basically satisfies everyone, IMO.

I suspect that in the next few months, the Alliance will get over its SEC-envy and we will get a 6+6 expansion. Maybe 5+7.

We shall see.
(This post was last modified: 09-29-2021 05:57 PM by quo vadis.)
09-29-2021 05:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,598
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 158
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #33
RE: CFP Expansion: Hancock says new plan must be agreed to in 3 to 4 months, or ...
(09-29-2021 09:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 08:56 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 06:49 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I’ve said it elsewhere. It’s too much too fast. I’m shocked it could have changed before the end of the contract. It won’t. It will run its course.

It’s not just the conferences who weren’t in the room that would pump the brakes on this. The bowls had to respond accordingly, too. And for the ones that have good relationships with some of these conferences, there would be more wagon-circling.

January 2026 which is the start of the new cycle is only 4 years away at this point.

That is not really that long to wait. We already have 6 P5 moves (OU, UT, BYU, UH, UC, UCF) and more G5 moves in the pipeline.

Waiting a year or two to hammer all the points out is not a bad thing when you consider these new conference alignments will impact bowl alignments etc.

But it leaves hundreds of millions on the table.
And again, its not hard to figure out. You just need people willing to get it done. They will probably have a bunch of lawyers negotiating who always wait until the last minute to compromise.

Right, and one could have said this about the BCS at the end of cycle one or of how mixed the four-team model was. Still, the BCS lived on for another cycle, and the next bump was the current four-team model.

More money has been left on the table for years, and that is a conscious decision. This is more about ego, tradition, and control. Case in point: how the bowls, especially the Rose, has factored into things. And the bowls have spoken in this round. They have demands. They could also tie this up in courts if anything goes out of step. And, you will have two conferences making sure at least the Rose is as happy as they are. Don’t know if this also applies to the Sugar, Orange, and others.

I don’t disagree how awesome it was to see games scheduled on the fly last season. But, I suspect for the major conferences out there and their network handlers, they’ll be hesistant about repeating that when it doesn’t have to rush.

I agree…it’s not that far off to wait out. We saw the end of this current version of the Big XII finally present. This, too, can be pushed off.
09-29-2021 06:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,800
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 913
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Charlotte, NC
Post: #34
RE: CFP Expansion: Hancock says new plan must be agreed to in 3 to 4 months, or ...
(09-29-2021 05:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 01:54 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  It’s not surprising Hancock would be pushing for a hasty decision. Hancock probably has his hand deep in ESPN’s pocket and he’s being pressured to get this done for them.

The best proposal:

Eight spots with automatic bids for every P5 conference, a bid for the best of AAC/MW, a bid for the best of SB/CUSA/MAC and a bid for the ND/Next Best Conference Runner-up.

The only way The Alliance and Group of 5 conferences should go for 12 is a limit of two teams from any conference.

If The SEC and Notre Dame don’t agree to The Alliance and G5 terms, we wait until the end of the contract which I prefer. The linked article reminded me of a wise quote from Businessman Howard Newton

“People forget how fast you did a job – but they remember how well you did it”

I think the wise thing to do is the original 12-team playoff proposal. That basically satisfies everyone, IMO.

I suspect that in the next few months, the Alliance will get over its SEC-envy and we will get a 6+6 expansion. Maybe 5+7.

We shall see.

^^^ THIS ^^^
09-29-2021 06:28 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RUScarlets Online
All American
*

Posts: 2,942
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 38
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #35
RE: CFP Expansion: Hancock says new plan must be agreed to in 3 to 4 months, or ...
I don’t think it’s going to happen any time soon. Let the current cycle run its course. Then consider eight teams only.
09-29-2021 07:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 41,494
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1479
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #36
RE: CFP Expansion: Hancock says new plan must be agreed to in 3 to 4 months, or ...
(09-29-2021 06:25 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 09:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 08:56 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(09-29-2021 06:49 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I’ve said it elsewhere. It’s too much too fast. I’m shocked it could have changed before the end of the contract. It won’t. It will run its course.

It’s not just the conferences who weren’t in the room that would pump the brakes on this. The bowls had to respond accordingly, too. And for the ones that have good relationships with some of these conferences, there would be more wagon-circling.

January 2026 which is the start of the new cycle is only 4 years away at this point.

That is not really that long to wait. We already have 6 P5 moves (OU, UT, BYU, UH, UC, UCF) and more G5 moves in the pipeline.

Waiting a year or two to hammer all the points out is not a bad thing when you consider these new conference alignments will impact bowl alignments etc.

But it leaves hundreds of millions on the table.
And again, its not hard to figure out. You just need people willing to get it done. They will probably have a bunch of lawyers negotiating who always wait until the last minute to compromise.

Right, and one could have said this about the BCS at the end of cycle one or of how mixed the four-team model was. Still, the BCS lived on for another cycle, and the next bump was the current four-team model.

More money has been left on the table for years, and that is a conscious decision. This is more about ego, tradition, and control. Case in point: how the bowls, especially the Rose, has factored into things. And the bowls have spoken in this round. They have demands. They could also tie this up in courts if anything goes out of step. And, you will have two conferences making sure at least the Rose is as happy as they are. Don’t know if this also applies to the Sugar, Orange, and others.

I don’t disagree how awesome it was to see games scheduled on the fly last season. But, I suspect for the major conferences out there and their network handlers, they’ll be hesistant about repeating that when it doesn’t have to rush.

I agree…it’s not that far off to wait out. We saw the end of this current version of the Big XII finally present. This, too, can be pushed off.

+2 for a good point.
09-29-2021 07:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,430
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 364
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #37
RE: CFP Expansion: Hancock says new plan must be agreed to in 3 to 4 months, or ...
(09-29-2021 10:39 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  The fact that walking away completely from the non-Rose Bowls is an option is going to impact the bowls in the next CFP round. The bowls won't get left out completely, but they'll get much less than they got last time. I don't know if the quarterfinals rotate between 6 bowls, for example. So 2 of the 6 get demoted back to Citrus Bowl status. Probably.

Neither the SEC nor the Big12 are particular "BFFs" of the Sugar Bowl ... that is why the SEC + Big12 + ND system was well set up to push back against any special role for the bowl games.

But that doesn't mean that the Sugar Bowl won't have anyone that can push their interest.

After all, the viewing demo of college football trends older than the viewing demo of the NFL, so there is still residual media value to the Sugar and Orange bowls.

And that is where opening it up to the market is in the bowls interest, since the prospective media partners are going to want the CFP12 Quarterfinals to be garner the biggest audience, which means they are going to want to have as many on NYD as workable in the scheduling constraints of a given year, and they are going to want the ones which have the best draw out of the gate.

And that means keeping the Sugar Bowl and Rose Bowl on NYD and building the system around that.

When the scheduling works to have three QF on NYD, have those two plus a third QF bowl ... otherwise only have the Sugar Bowl and the Rose Bowl and a second tier bowl of some sort, and the other two QF on the second best day.

Which suggests leaving the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl as permanent QF bowls and alternating the other four in two pairs, one pair QF bowls in odd years, the other pair QF bowls in even years.
09-29-2021 07:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SMUfan Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 666
Joined: May 2015
Reputation: 13
I Root For: JsuUsaSmuArkClmUab
Location:
Post: #38
RE: CFP Expansion: Hancock says new plan must be agreed to in 3 to 4 months, or ...
Here is the fastest way to get a 12 team playoff.

Have this years 4 playoff teams be:
1. Georgia
2. Alabama
3. Oklahoma
4. Cincinnati

Nobody from the "Alliance". Could happen.....
10-03-2021 12:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 49,858
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1942
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #39
RE: CFP Expansion: Hancock says new plan must be agreed to in 3 to 4 months, or ...
(10-03-2021 12:39 PM)SMUfan Wrote:  Here is the fastest way to get a 12 team playoff.

Have this years 4 playoff teams be:
1. Georgia
2. Alabama
3. Oklahoma
4. Cincinnati

Nobody from the "Alliance". Could happen.....

I've long said there would quickly be an expansion if the Big 10 and SEC got shut out in the same year.
10-03-2021 12:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AuzGrams Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 613
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 6
I Root For: Utah, UVU
Location:
Post: #40
RE: CFP Expansion: Hancock says new plan must be agreed to in 3 to 4 months, or ...
8 teams with the 5-1-2 model please.
10-04-2021 07:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2021 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, © 2002-2021 MyBB Group.