(01-17-2022 10:45 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-17-2022 10:09 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(01-17-2022 09:40 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-17-2022 08:54 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(01-17-2022 08:03 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I don't think it matters what Warren said because certain forces are spinning a narrative for their own reasons. Unless you hear it with your own ears you have to take a grain with ESPN/SEC/B10/P12/Bowlsby and Swarbrick salt. This is politics.

The B1G will never come out and admit what they want plain as day, even though we know exactly what they want. PAC/B1G locked in exclusively as a SF or QF. It’s laughable that Phillips is being made as the fall guy here. They (the B1G) are probably angling for status quo until it is time to pick apart the carcass that will be the ACC. It is evident that nothing is going to get done, but it does present an interesting setup going forward because no one is being forthright of exactly what they want or need (regarding the Alliance) in the next iteration.

I agree. I don’t think the PAC is blameless either despite the “wasn’t me” tour. I thought this quote by Kliavkoff was telling….

For Kliavkoff, that was part of the problem. He told ESPN he has "absolutely no issues with the process or the work that the subcommittee did," but that the public reveal might have impacted its chances.

"My issue with what happened was, never in the history of college athletics has there been an announcement of a model that everyone that needed to agree to that model on had not yet agreed to," he said. "When you announce the model before everyone who needs to agree to it agrees to it, you create an assumption that it's a done deal and just needs a rubber stamp. ...

"I wish we would have not shared that with the public until everyone that had to agree to it had had the opportunity to work through the few issues we had. I think we would've been done already."

Everyone is to blame, Everyone including the SEC, BigXII, and ND for leaking the CFP idea before anyone else had a chance to really review what it meant.

Question for you, can you please explain to me the "wasn't me" tour? I understand you hate the PAC with every once of your being as it shows itself in almost every post, but I'm curious what your beef with Kliavkoff is? Maybe it's just guilt by association...

Did you read the article? The released it on purpose to prevent competing agendas to spin it one way or another.

I don’t hate the PAC. I see a number of things that don’t add up and don’t believe their public assertions about being ambivalent to the 6 + 6 model. I also watched the PAC UC schools similarly derail a proposal to allow the Cal-States to offer doctoral degrees in the applied sciences. Like this one, it made it out of committee with a much ballyhooed compromise. The UC’s would continue to be the sole source of PhD’s in pure sciences but the Cal States could start to offer PhDs in applied areas where they had expertise. The UC PAC schools similarly killed it.

So when I see things that don’t add up and I know the PAC’s history…. I’m inclined to be skeptical of their claims. My mental image is Shaggy singing “wasn’t me”.

https://youtu.be/pslgz9o8meM

Perhaps I’m just a lot older than you all….. lol

Yes I read it, what's your point? You say they released it to prevent spin, what is everyone talking about in here and all over the college sports world? SPIN... mission not accomplished???

The early release of the committee's ideas for an expanded CFP was a power play and PR move... if everyone accepted the proposal as is, committee members win... or the other conferences don't agree with the proposal and have different ideas and the committee can point their fingers at the other conferences and say it's their fault this isn't happening... committee members win... I've stated this in other threads, it was a smart move by the committee but let’s not give them to much credit.

And if anyone is pulling a "It wasn't me" tour, it's Sankey, Bowlsby, and Swarbrick... because when this doesn't happen, which it won't, they'll be pointing fingers saying "it wasn't me"

(01-18-2022 07:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 07:46 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 07:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 06:55 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Whether it’s a real concern or just a cover, the player safety is a strong card. From today’s CBS article:

“Expanding the playoff to 12 teams creates the possibility of at least one team playing 17 games in a single season. That remains a non-starter with ACC coaches because of health and safety concerns.”

I don't think it's a strong card. First, what is a "non-starter" with coaches is by itself irrelevant, as they don't get to decide this, the university presidents do. The coaches only matter if the president care what they think.

Second, if the issue is expansion before 2026, which I think the it is, then everyone has a strong hand, because any conference can sink expansion for any reason they want.

It’s a strong card because it’s a politically correct argument. I would frame this as PLAYER SAFETY vs MONEY.

You are falsely assuming that anyone believes any conference commissioners saying that. They have demonstrated repeatedly through their actions that the aren't that concerned.

If the idea is that it’s a political statement, since when has any politician said anything honest?

(01-17-2022 11:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-17-2022 10:59 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  6+6

Double host the Rose & Orange

Rose (B1G/PAC)
Orange (ACC/SEC)

Problem solved.

Even easier - just keep the current contract tie-ins for double hosting:

Rose (B1G vs. Pac-12)
Sugar (SEC vs. Big 12)
Orange (ACC vs. B1G/SEC/ND)

Heck, even let the Cotton, Fiesta and Peach Bowls double host. If a P5 champ doesn’t make the CFP in a given year, they would be guaranteed a spot in an access bowl if their contract bowl a quarterfinal game that year.

It would create high end consolation prize content and fill out the schedule around the CFP games. Tack value onto the contract, perhaps not a lot of value but if its 25 million per game instead of earning 8 million in the Citrus bowl that is more money.

It keeps the edge over the G5 who wouldn't be able to participate in a P5 bowl while still doing it "in the sense of fairness" with 6+6.

(01-18-2022 07:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 06:35 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 12:22 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 11:20 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 11:16 AM)XLance Wrote:  You don't read well.
Nobody said anything about the defeat of the SEC.

No, you didn't say anything about the defeat of the SEC because you apparently don't understand the Yalta Conference very well. Yalta was a gathering of Allied leaders to plan for the postwar world, at a point when Nazi Germany was on the ropes and would only last a few more months.

The Alliance is in no similar position to plan for the future of college football, and then impose that plan on the SEC.

Yes and no. The rules per the ESPN article states that any new system requires a majority plus 3 of 5 major conferences. I don’t believe the BIG and ACC play hardball now unless they know they have the PAC on their side. Why pass on the revenue increase now only to have 6 + 6 imposed on you anyway when the PAC votes for it? I don’t think the PAC is ever voting for 6 + 6. The Alliance has veto power as long as they hang together and the rest don’t just break away.

Any change in the playoff system currently requires a unanimous vote. In year 13 or 2026, a change will require a simple majority and three out of five power conferences.

This is an important point that hasn't been discussed enough here, especially since the PAC commissioner has stated that in 2026 we don't need everyone on board to create a new system. So who do we need?

I think many have assumed that Notre Dame is included in the management structure because they provide the P5 with a sixth vote to beat back any attempts by the G5 to take over the system. But that's not the case, because you need a minimum of 3 P5 to change the system, even if G5 and ND band together for 6 votes.

All of this is dependent upon things remaining static. They aren't going to. It depends on a variety of factors which are perishable. You may not have a P5 in 3 years. You may not have everyone remain in the NCAA. Athletes might be paid. You could have two separate organizations. ESPN may have their own college league by then. What might matter the most for financial reasons is which of the two organizations has the most legitimate claim upon the national championship.

Nothing in life is certain, except that the strong are seldom strong armed, and they have little need to be in a gang, and even less need to draw attention to success because success is usually where the crowds gather.

(01-18-2022 11:35 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(01-17-2022 10:45 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-17-2022 10:09 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(01-17-2022 09:40 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-17-2022 08:54 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  The B1G will never come out and admit what they want plain as day, even though we know exactly what they want. PAC/B1G locked in exclusively as a SF or QF. It’s laughable that Phillips is being made as the fall guy here. They (the B1G) are probably angling for status quo until it is time to pick apart the carcass that will be the ACC. It is evident that nothing is going to get done, but it does present an interesting setup going forward because no one is being forthright of exactly what they want or need (regarding the Alliance) in the next iteration.

I agree. I don’t think the PAC is blameless either despite the “wasn’t me” tour. I thought this quote by Kliavkoff was telling….

For Kliavkoff, that was part of the problem. He told ESPN he has "absolutely no issues with the process or the work that the subcommittee did," but that the public reveal might have impacted its chances.

"My issue with what happened was, never in the history of college athletics has there been an announcement of a model that everyone that needed to agree to that model on had not yet agreed to," he said. "When you announce the model before everyone who needs to agree to it agrees to it, you create an assumption that it's a done deal and just needs a rubber stamp. ...

"I wish we would have not shared that with the public until everyone that had to agree to it had had the opportunity to work through the few issues we had. I think we would've been done already."

Everyone is to blame, Everyone including the SEC, BigXII, and ND for leaking the CFP idea before anyone else had a chance to really review what it meant.

Question for you, can you please explain to me the "wasn't me" tour? I understand you hate the PAC with every once of your being as it shows itself in almost every post, but I'm curious what your beef with Kliavkoff is? Maybe it's just guilt by association...

Did you read the article? The released it on purpose to prevent competing agendas to spin it one way or another.

I don’t hate the PAC. I see a number of things that don’t add up and don’t believe their public assertions about being ambivalent to the 6 + 6 model. I also watched the PAC UC schools similarly derail a proposal to allow the Cal-States to offer doctoral degrees in the applied sciences. Like this one, it made it out of committee with a much ballyhooed compromise. The UC’s would continue to be the sole source of PhD’s in pure sciences but the Cal States could start to offer PhDs in applied areas where they had expertise. The UC PAC schools similarly killed it.

So when I see things that don’t add up and I know the PAC’s history…. I’m inclined to be skeptical of their claims. My mental image is Shaggy singing “wasn’t me”.

https://youtu.be/pslgz9o8meM

Perhaps I’m just a lot older than you all….. lol

Yes I read it, what's your point? You say they released it to prevent spin, what is everyone talking about in here and all over the college sports world? SPIN... mission not accomplished???

The early release of the committee's ideas for an expanded CFP was a power play and PR move... if everyone accepted the proposal as is, committee members win... or the other conferences don't agree with the proposal and have different ideas and the committee can point their fingers at the other conferences and say it's their fault this isn't happening... committee members win... I've stated this in other threads, it was a smart move by the committee but let’s not give them to much credit.

And if anyone is pulling a "It wasn't me" tour, it's Sankey, Bowlsby, and Swarbrick... because when this doesn't happen, which it won't, they'll be pointing fingers saying "it wasn't me"

Whatever. The BIG and PAC want 5 + 1 + 6 to protect Rose Bowl revenue. That’s fine. At least of the morals to say so. The alliance is full of crap.

(01-18-2022 11:02 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 07:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 07:46 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 07:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 06:55 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Whether it’s a real concern or just a cover, the player safety is a strong card. From today’s CBS article:

“Expanding the playoff to 12 teams creates the possibility of at least one team playing 17 games in a single season. That remains a non-starter with ACC coaches because of health and safety concerns.”

I don't think it's a strong card. First, what is a "non-starter" with coaches is by itself irrelevant, as they don't get to decide this, the university presidents do. The coaches only matter if the president care what they think.

Second, if the issue is expansion before 2026, which I think the it is, then everyone has a strong hand, because any conference can sink expansion for any reason they want.

It’s a strong card because it’s a politically correct argument. I would frame this as PLAYER SAFETY vs MONEY.

You are falsely assuming that anyone believes any conference commissioners saying that. They have demonstrated repeatedly through their actions that the aren't that concerned.

That a Conference Commissioner is a lying scoundrel is not new. They are. What has changed is that even in conservative parts of the country, the athlete has been given new voice and new defacto power to protect themselves. It does not have to be "real" or "legal" power but they have a direct line to the media and the ptb in the University Towers can't stand up to such scrutiny and criticism.

I agree with this. Heck, I think the players have real power just through their ability to play or not.

The 11 members of the Board of Managers can discuss and agree on playoff schemes all they want, but if many players believe an expanded playoffs is too many games, and start to make individual choices to opt out, then that will IMO undermine the playoff scheme, perhaps fatally.

(01-19-2022 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 11:02 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 07:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 07:46 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 07:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I don't think it's a strong card. First, what is a "non-starter" with coaches is by itself irrelevant, as they don't get to decide this, the university presidents do. The coaches only matter if the president care what they think.

Second, if the issue is expansion before 2026, which I think the it is, then everyone has a strong hand, because any conference can sink expansion for any reason they want.

It’s a strong card because it’s a politically correct argument. I would frame this as PLAYER SAFETY vs MONEY.

You are falsely assuming that anyone believes any conference commissioners saying that. They have demonstrated repeatedly through their actions that the aren't that concerned.

That a Conference Commissioner is a lying scoundrel is not new. They are. What has changed is that even in conservative parts of the country, the athlete has been given new voice and new defacto power to protect themselves. It does not have to be "real" or "legal" power but they have a direct line to the media and the ptb in the University Towers can't stand up to such scrutiny and criticism.

I agree with this. Heck, I think the players have real power just through their ability to play or not.

The 11 members of the Board of Managers can discuss and agree on playoff schemes all they want, but if many players believe an expanded playoffs is too many games, and start to make individual choices to opt out, then that will IMO undermine the playoff scheme, perhaps fatally.

Well duh! This is why pay for play will happen and more importantly, contracts will be signed. It shifts a good deal of control back to coaches and administration. It is also the answer to the transfer portal. Academics are just bewildered about Title IX implications and oh so slow on the uptake. For businessmen it's like trying to spoon feed your grandmother her lunch at the Nursing Home. You know it will get done but it takes a lot of patience to get her to do what's best for herself.

(01-19-2022 10:05 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-19-2022 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 11:02 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 07:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 07:46 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  It’s a strong card because it’s a politically correct argument. I would frame this as PLAYER SAFETY vs MONEY.

You are falsely assuming that anyone believes any conference commissioners saying that. They have demonstrated repeatedly through their actions that the aren't that concerned.

That a Conference Commissioner is a lying scoundrel is not new. They are. What has changed is that even in conservative parts of the country, the athlete has been given new voice and new defacto power to protect themselves. It does not have to be "real" or "legal" power but they have a direct line to the media and the ptb in the University Towers can't stand up to such scrutiny and criticism.

I agree with this. Heck, I think the players have real power just through their ability to play or not.

The 11 members of the Board of Managers can discuss and agree on playoff schemes all they want, but if many players believe an expanded playoffs is too many games, and start to make individual choices to opt out, then that will IMO undermine the playoff scheme, perhaps fatally.

Well duh! This is why pay for play will happen and more importantly, contracts will be signed. It shifts a good deal of control back to coaches and administration. It is also the answer to the transfer portal. Academics are just bewildered about Title IX implications and oh so slow on the uptake. For businessmen it's like trying to spoon feed your grandmother her lunch at the Nursing Home. You know it will get done but it takes a lot of patience to get her to do what's best for herself.

Playing this notion of contracts out, we might end up in a situation where eligibility rules are eliminated, such that guys who don't have real NFL prospects might just sign contracts to play for 5 or even 10 years for a school. Tweener guys who can't make an NFL roster but are good enough to be of real value on a college team. It might beat getting a real job.

We're already seeing something like that, with "super seniors" who now hang around for six years or so. I think this past year, Clemson had an LB who had been in the program since 2016.

Campus life can be fun. I did the same thing - I enjoyed my college years so much I decided never to leave, that's why I became a professor, LOL.

(01-19-2022 10:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-19-2022 10:05 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-19-2022 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 11:02 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 07:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  You are falsely assuming that anyone believes any conference commissioners saying that. They have demonstrated repeatedly through their actions that the aren't that concerned.

That a Conference Commissioner is a lying scoundrel is not new. They are. What has changed is that even in conservative parts of the country, the athlete has been given new voice and new defacto power to protect themselves. It does not have to be "real" or "legal" power but they have a direct line to the media and the ptb in the University Towers can't stand up to such scrutiny and criticism.

I agree with this. Heck, I think the players have real power just through their ability to play or not.

The 11 members of the Board of Managers can discuss and agree on playoff schemes all they want, but if many players believe an expanded playoffs is too many games, and start to make individual choices to opt out, then that will IMO undermine the playoff scheme, perhaps fatally.

Well duh! This is why pay for play will happen and more importantly, contracts will be signed. It shifts a good deal of control back to coaches and administration. It is also the answer to the transfer portal. Academics are just bewildered about Title IX implications and oh so slow on the uptake. For businessmen it's like trying to spoon feed your grandmother her lunch at the Nursing Home. You know it will get done but it takes a lot of patience to get her to do what's best for herself.

Playing this notion of contracts out, we might end up in a situation where eligibility rules are eliminated, such that guys who don't have real NFL prospects might just sign contracts to play for 5 or even 10 years for a school. Tweener guys who can't make an NFL roster but are good enough to be of real value on a college team. It might beat getting a real job.

We're already seeing something like that, with "super seniors" who now hang around for six years or so. I think this past year, Clemson had an LB who had been in the program since 2016.

Campus life can be fun. I did the same thing - I enjoyed my college years so much I decided never to leave, that's why I became a professor, LOL.

I doubt we'll see 10 years but stretching athletes to 7 is within the realm of believability. Schools will keep academic requirements though majors and course work will change and degrees in coaching, training, officiating, etc., will likely come about. I can see 4 years of undergraduate eligibility with 3 years for a masters (at a different school) with a redshirt year in there somewhere. The intent for those who apply themselves will be to help them translate their talents into a career beyond playing, which for most will be practical. For academically inclined athletes any field will do, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

Those of us with 2 degrees and a career called what you and many others did the big stall. It was called something else during Viet Nam! As a Renaissance man I do envy the lifestyle.

(01-19-2022 11:24 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-19-2022 10:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-19-2022 10:05 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-19-2022 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-18-2022 11:02 PM)Statefan Wrote:  That a Conference Commissioner is a lying scoundrel is not new. They are. What has changed is that even in conservative parts of the country, the athlete has been given new voice and new defacto power to protect themselves. It does not have to be "real" or "legal" power but they have a direct line to the media and the ptb in the University Towers can't stand up to such scrutiny and criticism.

I agree with this. Heck, I think the players have real power just through their ability to play or not.

The 11 members of the Board of Managers can discuss and agree on playoff schemes all they want, but if many players believe an expanded playoffs is too many games, and start to make individual choices to opt out, then that will IMO undermine the playoff scheme, perhaps fatally.

Well duh! This is why pay for play will happen and more importantly, contracts will be signed. It shifts a good deal of control back to coaches and administration. It is also the answer to the transfer portal. Academics are just bewildered about Title IX implications and oh so slow on the uptake. For businessmen it's like trying to spoon feed your grandmother her lunch at the Nursing Home. You know it will get done but it takes a lot of patience to get her to do what's best for herself.

Playing this notion of contracts out, we might end up in a situation where eligibility rules are eliminated, such that guys who don't have real NFL prospects might just sign contracts to play for 5 or even 10 years for a school. Tweener guys who can't make an NFL roster but are good enough to be of real value on a college team. It might beat getting a real job.

We're already seeing something like that, with "super seniors" who now hang around for six years or so. I think this past year, Clemson had an LB who had been in the program since 2016.

Campus life can be fun. I did the same thing - I enjoyed my college years so much I decided never to leave, that's why I became a professor, LOL.

I doubt we'll see 10 years but stretching athletes to 7 is within the realm of believability. Schools will keep academic requirements though majors and course work will change and degrees in coaching, training, officiating, etc., will likely come about. I can see 4 years of undergraduate eligibility with 3 years for a masters (at a different school) with a redshirt year in there somewhere. The intent for those who apply themselves will be to help them translate their talents into a career beyond playing, which for most will be practical. For academically inclined athletes any field will do, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

Those of us with 2 degrees and a career called what you and many others did the big stall. It was called something else during Viet Nam! As a Renaissance man I do envy the lifestyle.

FWIW, the "stall" aspect definitely applied to me. When I was finishing my senior year, I realized I had no real desire to put on a suit and tie and enter the "real world" of work, so I began thinking of ways to avoid that.

Graduate school came to mind, LOL.

(01-19-2022 11:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-19-2022 11:24 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-19-2022 10:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-19-2022 10:05 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-19-2022 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I agree with this. Heck, I think the players have real power just through their ability to play or not.

The 11 members of the Board of Managers can discuss and agree on playoff schemes all they want, but if many players believe an expanded playoffs is too many games, and start to make individual choices to opt out, then that will IMO undermine the playoff scheme, perhaps fatally.

Well duh! This is why pay for play will happen and more importantly, contracts will be signed. It shifts a good deal of control back to coaches and administration. It is also the answer to the transfer portal. Academics are just bewildered about Title IX implications and oh so slow on the uptake. For businessmen it's like trying to spoon feed your grandmother her lunch at the Nursing Home. You know it will get done but it takes a lot of patience to get her to do what's best for herself.

Playing this notion of contracts out, we might end up in a situation where eligibility rules are eliminated, such that guys who don't have real NFL prospects might just sign contracts to play for 5 or even 10 years for a school. Tweener guys who can't make an NFL roster but are good enough to be of real value on a college team. It might beat getting a real job.

We're already seeing something like that, with "super seniors" who now hang around for six years or so. I think this past year, Clemson had an LB who had been in the program since 2016.

Campus life can be fun. I did the same thing - I enjoyed my college years so much I decided never to leave, that's why I became a professor, LOL.

I doubt we'll see 10 years but stretching athletes to 7 is within the realm of believability. Schools will keep academic requirements though majors and course work will change and degrees in coaching, training, officiating, etc., will likely come about. I can see 4 years of undergraduate eligibility with 3 years for a masters (at a different school) with a redshirt year in there somewhere. The intent for those who apply themselves will be to help them translate their talents into a career beyond playing, which for most will be practical. For academically inclined athletes any field will do, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

Those of us with 2 degrees and a career called what you and many others did the big stall. It was called something else during Viet Nam! As a Renaissance man I do envy the lifestyle.

FWIW, the "stall" aspect definitely applied to me. When I was finishing my senior year, I realized I had no real desire to put on a suit and tie and enter the "real world" of work, so I began thinking of ways to avoid that.

Graduate school came to mind, LOL.

I barely missed serving in the same war as my father and uncle. As much as I enjoyed school, I was ready for the break of work and the routine of family. As is the case all too often the work took over and I vaguely remember the routine of family. When I had saved enough for a Master's I went back and then started a second profession. I've now retired twice and my daughters learned so well from me that they too are deeply enmeshed in careers and routine. We talk more, but COVID and distance has become a barrier. I enjoy my wife and vines and garden. Look around and thank your mentors. I am the oldest male on both sides of our combined families. Lately it seems all I do is attend the funerals of friends and peers. My mentors are now all gone. They live in my mind and heart as do my father and grandparents. But it is all grand and from the distance of time spent even life's hardest times are now old friends who remind me of who I am when so many in my ranks have fallen. The bad part of getting old is that the young don't listen when you see them kicking against the same goads you once struggled with and you realize that life repeats itself every few generations, for good and for ill.

College football in the present chaos has merely returned to the game it was circa 1890-1920. Less injuries to be sure, but just as mercenary for coaches and players. Heisman had his ringers and moved for money. What's new?

(01-17-2022 06:35 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-17-2022 03:50 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I have been saying for months that they would never agree on “what it should look like or when it should begin.” Everyone dismissed these concerns. This is THE impediment. It is as if they want all their contract bowl tie-ins, conference champion games… AND a four-round playoff. Neither of these things are co-compatible. You have to axe one to get the other. This isn’t basketball.

If you read the article, it states that everyone is at 12 teams (even the ACC). That is NOT the issue.

The ACC is now objecting based on some amorphous (AKA administrative BS) grounds. The Big Ten wants P5 auto-bids. The Big Ten and Pac-12 want protection for the Rose Bowl, but it’s unclear what that might be.

There are several issues impeding CFP progress. Frankly, there are more issues than I could have reasonably thought to stymie such progress when so much money is on the line. That being said, it’s simply NOT about the size or schedule. It simply isn’t. The TV money is absolutely there, which means they’ll play games well into January on any day of the week. I think that’s the one thing that we could actually bank on through all of this here.

If the quarterfinals (round of 8) are held on New Year's Day, the Rose Bowl could be locked into the late afternoon slot that day as a permanent quarterfinal. A Big Ten or Pac 12 school could also be assured of being the home team in the Rose Bowl if they are one of the top 4 conference champions. Further arrangements could be made to have a Big Ten or Pac 12 school be the visiting school in the Rose Bowl if they win a first round game to qualify for the quarterfinals.

Semifinals could be scheduled on consecutive weeknights 7-10 days after New Year's Day to avoid going head to head with the NFL, with the final one week after that. This should allow the third weekend in December for first round games.

(01-19-2022 03:59 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Semifinals could be scheduled on consecutive weeknights 7-10 days after New Year's Day to avoid going head to head with the NFL, with the final one week after that. This should allow the third weekend in December for first round games.

If there is any chance of this happening, it’s going to come down to a desperate network ponying up big, along with blessings from Presidents and coaches/players and families. For me, I see it as a complete non-starter, but it doesn’t matter how I see it.

You can’t look at college football playoff ratings and tell me there is a demand, or clamor for January weeknight football. Not at the expense of coaches and players; not at the expense of traveling fans, not at the expense of diluted non-CFP Bowl games. The money will simply never be there.

I’d bet my account with Frank that they will never agree to this setup. That’s how confident I am with this. The reason being it makes no sense. The Bowls, on aggregate, have always been viewed as a money generating machine, because they could get fans traveling to these games. Despite challenges with COVID and opt-outs, I don’t see the model as obsolete.

There is no doubt in my mind that the SFs are not going to be held post NYD. I see it as a Rose Bowl fixture, or a rotating trio between the Orange and Sugar if the B1G or PAC fail to qualify.

The only exception I can see behind made is ESPN axing those week 18 NFL games to open up that first Saturday in January following NYD. Many folks can extend their vacations. I just cannot see them playing the biggest games of the year in half empty buildings on a winter weeknight. No way.

(01-19-2022 05:25 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(01-19-2022 03:59 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Semifinals could be scheduled on consecutive weeknights 7-10 days after New Year's Day to avoid going head to head with the NFL, with the final one week after that. This should allow the third weekend in December for first round games.

If there is any chance of this happening, it’s going to come down to a desperate network ponying up big, along with blessings from Presidents and coaches/players and families. For me, I see it as a complete non-starter, but it doesn’t matter how I see it.

You can’t look at college football playoff ratings and tell me there is a demand, or clamor for January weeknight football. Not at the expense of coaches and players; not at the expense of traveling fans, not at the expense of diluted non-CFP Bowl games. The money will simply never be there.

I’d bet my account with Frank that they will never agree to this setup. That’s how confident I am with this. The reason being it makes no sense. The Bowls, on aggregate, have always been viewed as a money generating machine, because they could get fans traveling to these games. Despite challenges with COVID and opt-outs, I don’t see the model as obsolete.

There is no doubt in my mind that the SFs are not going to be held post NYD. I see it as a Rose Bowl fixture, or a rotating trio between the Orange and Sugar if the B1G or PAC fail to qualify.

The only exception I can see behind made is ESPN axing those week 18 NFL games to open up that first Saturday in January following NYD. Many folks can extend their vacations. I just cannot see them playing the biggest games of the year in half empty buildings on a winter weeknight. No way.

The projections from the industry are that it will be a 400% rights fee increase for a 12-team playoff compared to the current CFP system.

The money is there. Every time that someone has predicted that the TV money won't be there for sports rights for the past 40 years, they have been absolutely wrong... and that's just about TV money for *existing* sporting events. In this case, we would be talking about brand new net additions of 8 elimination playoff games (between the first and second rounds). That's the single most valuable type of sports content that TV will ever pay for... and you're telling me that the money won't be there?

The money was there for the freaking NHL in its new TV contract (much less the NFL)!

Now, whether CFP expansion is stalled because some leagues are being territorial about how that money is *split* (which goes hand-in-hand with P5 auto-bids), then I would concede that could very well happen.

However, it won't be because the overall money isn't there. It's 100% there. Sports rights are in another boom market right now. That is the largest reason why the CFP went through this exercise of proposing playoff expansion in the first place (no matter what anyone else says). They're seeing a lower-rated NHL getting massive TV rights increases while college football is sitting on a guaranteed winning lottery ticket of more playoff games... and they all know that it's a massive source of untapped revenue that's sitting on the sidelines.

(01-20-2022 10:28 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-19-2022 05:25 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(01-19-2022 03:59 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Semifinals could be scheduled on consecutive weeknights 7-10 days after New Year's Day to avoid going head to head with the NFL, with the final one week after that. This should allow the third weekend in December for first round games.

If there is any chance of this happening, it’s going to come down to a desperate network ponying up big, along with blessings from Presidents and coaches/players and families. For me, I see it as a complete non-starter, but it doesn’t matter how I see it.

You can’t look at college football playoff ratings and tell me there is a demand, or clamor for January weeknight football. Not at the expense of coaches and players; not at the expense of traveling fans, not at the expense of diluted non-CFP Bowl games. The money will simply never be there.

I’d bet my account with Frank that they will never agree to this setup. That’s how confident I am with this. The reason being it makes no sense. The Bowls, on aggregate, have always been viewed as a money generating machine, because they could get fans traveling to these games. Despite challenges with COVID and opt-outs, I don’t see the model as obsolete.

There is no doubt in my mind that the SFs are not going to be held post NYD. I see it as a Rose Bowl fixture, or a rotating trio between the Orange and Sugar if the B1G or PAC fail to qualify.

The only exception I can see behind made is ESPN axing those week 18 NFL games to open up that first Saturday in January following NYD. Many folks can extend their vacations. I just cannot see them playing the biggest games of the year in half empty buildings on a winter weeknight. No way.

The projections from the industry are that it will be a 400% rights fee increase for a 12-team playoff compared to the current CFP system.

The money is there. Every time that someone has predicted that the TV money won't be there for sports rights for the past 40 years, they have been absolutely wrong... and that's just about TV money for *existing* sporting events. In this case, we would be talking about brand new net additions of 8 elimination playoff games (between the first and second rounds). That's the single most valuable type of sports content that TV will ever pay for... and you're telling me that the money won't be there?

The money was there for the freaking NHL in its new TV contract (much less the NFL)!

Now, whether CFP expansion is stalled because some leagues are being territorial about how that money is *split* (which goes hand-in-hand with P5 auto-bids), then I would concede that could very well happen.

However, it won't be because the overall money isn't there. It's 100% there. Sports rights are in another boom market right now. That is the largest reason why the CFP went through this exercise of proposing playoff expansion in the first place (no matter what anyone else says). They're seeing a lower-rated NHL getting massive TV rights increases while college football is sitting on a guaranteed winning lottery ticket of more playoff games... and they all know that it's a massive source of untapped revenue that's sitting on the sidelines.

I do believe a bigger expasion means more money. But there are many other factors (how to split money, who is getting more teams and more exposure, fear that one conference may get too much money and power, how bowls would work, scheduling, and yes player safety.) that the money alone may not dictate the foramt of the playoff expansion.

Of course it is possible some tech platform could swoop in under the radar and massively overpay for this. But it is marginal returns for ESPN to re-ante up. And another hypothetical TV networks needs a window as well. I just don't believe they will prioritize 2-3 mid January weeknight playoff games based on a 21-22 million viewer national championship game. CBS hasn't even re-entered the picture. Fox, we don't know. I don't see this bidding war coming to fruition in the way Presidents and commissioners may be envisioning. And the number simply cannot be quantified at this juncture. We just don't know how this extra toll on players and coaches, plus potential player salaries, will eat into the TV/streaming revenue.

(01-20-2022 01:00 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Of course it is possible some tech platform could swoop in under the radar and massively overpay for this. But it is marginal returns for ESPN to re-ante up. And another hypothetical TV networks needs a window as well. I just don't believe they will prioritize 2-3 mid January weeknight playoff games based on a 21-22 million viewer national championship game. CBS hasn't even re-entered the picture. Fox, we don't know. I don't see this bidding war coming to fruition in the way Presidents and commissioners may be envisioning. And the number simply cannot be quantified at this juncture. We just don't know how this extra toll on players and coaches, plus potential player salaries, will eat into the TV/streaming revenue.

For a college sports forum, I find it strange how so many people actually weirdly *underestimate* the TV power, value and leverage of college football and all sports in general.

Just look at this synopsis of the most watched programs on all of TV last year:

94 of the 100 most watched TV programs in 2021 were sporting events.

75 of those were NFL games.

10 of those were Olympics telecasts, which don't occur annually.

7 college football games were on the list.

2 college basketball games were on the list.

NO other pro sports games were on that list. (No MLB, NBA or NHL games at all.)

Even more insane, NO scripted TV program was on the list except for the episode of The Equalizer that aired after the Super Bowl (meaning that the only reason why that program got the rating itself was because of a sports lead-in).

The 4 news programs that were on the list were 3 programs in connection with the presidential inauguration (another non-annual occurrence) and the Oprah interview of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.

Here's what the data actually shows: the NFL is king and it's not even close. Every network will bend (and should bend) to whatever the NFL wants at any time and anywhere.

The Olympics also continue to be a huge draw when they're held.

Putting aside the NFL and Olympics, though, what this data also shows is that college football is the next most valuable product on all of television. Not just valuable among sports properties, but repeat, on all of television.

The big mistake a lot of fans are making is seeing that viewership numbers have gone down for the CFP and other games over the years and then thinking that it means college football is declining in value. That's not true at all because you have to consider that ALL of TV is losing viewership at a very high rate and the fact of the matter is that college football is actually retaining a higher percentage of that viewership than virtually anything other than the NFL.

This means that the *relative* power of college football for TV purposes is higher than ever before. In fact, the only annual product on *all* of TV that's more valuable than college football is the NFL itself.

Considering this data, supercharging the CFP with 8 more do-or-die win-or-go-home playoff elimination games that didn't exist before would be an absolute monster infusion of cash. The likelihood of it being even higher than the projected 400% increase is way more likely than it coming under that amount.

Everyone needs to look at the context of that data that I've just shown here. The power of college football compared to everything else on TV has never been higher. The money will not only be there for CFP expansion, but it's going to be a mega-monster in terms of that money.

(01-20-2022 02:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 01:00 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Of course it is possible some tech platform could swoop in under the radar and massively overpay for this. But it is marginal returns for ESPN to re-ante up. And another hypothetical TV networks needs a window as well. I just don't believe they will prioritize 2-3 mid January weeknight playoff games based on a 21-22 million viewer national championship game. CBS hasn't even re-entered the picture. Fox, we don't know. I don't see this bidding war coming to fruition in the way Presidents and commissioners may be envisioning. And the number simply cannot be quantified at this juncture. We just don't know how this extra toll on players and coaches, plus potential player salaries, will eat into the TV/streaming revenue.

For a college sports forum, I find it strange how so many people actually weirdly *underestimate* the TV power, value and leverage of college football and all sports in general.

Just look at this synopsis of the most watched programs on all of TV last year:

94 of the 100 most watched TV programs in 2021 were sporting events.

75 of those were NFL games.

10 of those were Olympics telecasts, which don't occur annually.

7 college football games were on the list.

2 college basketball games were on the list.

NO other pro sports games were on that list. (No MLB, NBA or NHL games at all.)

Even more insane, NO scripted TV program was on the list except for the episode of The Equalizer that aired after the Super Bowl (meaning that the only reason why that program got the rating itself was because of a sports lead-in).

The 4 news programs that were on the list were 3 programs in connection with the presidential inauguration (another non-annual occurrence) and the Oprah interview of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.

Here's what the data actually shows: the NFL is king and it's not even close. Every network will bend (and should bend) to whatever the NFL wants at any time and anywhere.

The Olympics also continue to be a huge draw when they're held.

Putting aside the NFL and Olympics, though, what this data also shows is that college football is the next most valuable product on all of television. Not just valuable among sports properties, but repeat, on all of television.

The big mistake a lot of fans are making is seeing that viewership numbers have gone down for the CFP and other games over the years and then thinking that it means college football is declining in value. That's not true at all because you have to consider that ALL of TV is losing viewership at a very high rate and the fact of the matter is that college football is actually retaining a higher percentage of that viewership than virtually anything other than the NFL.

This means that the *relative* power of college football for TV purposes is higher than ever before. In fact, the only annual product on *all* of TV that's more valuable than college football is the NFL itself.

Considering this data, supercharging the CFP with 8 more do-or-die win-or-go-home playoff elimination games that didn't exist before would be an absolute monster infusion of cash. The likelihood of it being even higher than the projected 400% increase is way more likely than it coming under that amount.

Everyone needs to look at the context of that data that I've just shown here. The power of college football compared to everything else on TV has never been higher. The money will not only be there for CFP expansion, but it's going to be a mega-monster in terms of that money.

Perfect example of lawyers doing math. You CANNOT normalize to declining ratings in hockey, MLB, or Bball. This is essentially a parallel variable to football viewership. Yes, the relative market share maybe be skewed towards football, but it is not indicative of increasing popularity. You can normalize to the way ratings are tabulated, demographics, subscriptions or something completely independent.

So forget about the NHL (the new deal is 1 billion over seven years including both Turner and ESPN unless I'm reading that wrong, which is comparable to the NBC deal per annum so I'm not even seeing your point there). But I digress.

The top broadcasts you've listed here also need to be weighted by total viewership or whatever percent of households Nielson uses, and in that case, the NFL would have closer to a 90% share of all TV telecasts. College football is still a fraction of that, and you are talking numbers like an extra 400 million being flung around as if ESPN will have no problem expending that (inflation adjustments aside).

I don't have the time to get all granular with the data here, but all of this is premature until the other conferences re-ante with their existing or new TV partners for their next TV deals. We have to see what the Big 12 gets on the open market. The ACC will definitely be underpaid over the back half of their current deal. Also the PAC12 deal is coming up, so let's wait and see.

(01-20-2022 03:01 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 02:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 01:00 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Of course it is possible some tech platform could swoop in under the radar and massively overpay for this. But it is marginal returns for ESPN to re-ante up. And another hypothetical TV networks needs a window as well. I just don't believe they will prioritize 2-3 mid January weeknight playoff games based on a 21-22 million viewer national championship game. CBS hasn't even re-entered the picture. Fox, we don't know. I don't see this bidding war coming to fruition in the way Presidents and commissioners may be envisioning. And the number simply cannot be quantified at this juncture. We just don't know how this extra toll on players and coaches, plus potential player salaries, will eat into the TV/streaming revenue.

For a college sports forum, I find it strange how so many people actually weirdly *underestimate* the TV power, value and leverage of college football and all sports in general.

Just look at this synopsis of the most watched programs on all of TV last year:

94 of the 100 most watched TV programs in 2021 were sporting events.

75 of those were NFL games.

10 of those were Olympics telecasts, which don't occur annually.

7 college football games were on the list.

2 college basketball games were on the list.

NO other pro sports games were on that list. (No MLB, NBA or NHL games at all.)

Even more insane, NO scripted TV program was on the list except for the episode of The Equalizer that aired after the Super Bowl (meaning that the only reason why that program got the rating itself was because of a sports lead-in).

The 4 news programs that were on the list were 3 programs in connection with the presidential inauguration (another non-annual occurrence) and the Oprah interview of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.

Here's what the data actually shows: the NFL is king and it's not even close. Every network will bend (and should bend) to whatever the NFL wants at any time and anywhere.

The Olympics also continue to be a huge draw when they're held.

Putting aside the NFL and Olympics, though, what this data also shows is that college football is the next most valuable product on all of television. Not just valuable among sports properties, but repeat, on all of television.

The big mistake a lot of fans are making is seeing that viewership numbers have gone down for the CFP and other games over the years and then thinking that it means college football is declining in value. That's not true at all because you have to consider that ALL of TV is losing viewership at a very high rate and the fact of the matter is that college football is actually retaining a higher percentage of that viewership than virtually anything other than the NFL.

This means that the *relative* power of college football for TV purposes is higher than ever before. In fact, the only annual product on *all* of TV that's more valuable than college football is the NFL itself.

Considering this data, supercharging the CFP with 8 more do-or-die win-or-go-home playoff elimination games that didn't exist before would be an absolute monster infusion of cash. The likelihood of it being even higher than the projected 400% increase is way more likely than it coming under that amount.

Everyone needs to look at the context of that data that I've just shown here. The power of college football compared to everything else on TV has never been higher. The money will not only be there for CFP expansion, but it's going to be a mega-monster in terms of that money.

Perfect example of lawyers doing math. You CANNOT normalize to declining ratings in hockey, MLB, or Bball. This is essentially a parallel variable to football viewership. Yes, the relative market share maybe be skewed towards football, but it is not indicative of increasing popularity. You can normalize to the way ratings are tabulated, demographics, subscriptions or something completely independent.

So forget about the NHL (the new deal is 1 billion over seven years including both Turner and ESPN unless I'm reading that wrong, which is comparable to the NBC deal per annum so I'm not even seeing your point there). But I digress.

The top broadcasts you've listed here also need to be weighted by total viewership or whatever percent of households Nielson uses, and in that case, the NFL would have closer to a 90% share of all TV telecasts. College football is still a fraction of that, and you are talking numbers like an extra 400 million being flung around as if ESPN will have no problem expending that (inflation adjustments aside).

I don't have the time to get all granular with the data here, but all of this is premature until the other conferences re-ante with their existing or new TV partners for their next TV deals. We have to see what the Big 12 gets on the open market. The ACC will definitely be underpaid over the back half of their current deal. Also the PAC12 deal is coming up, so let's wait and see.

What on Earth are you talking about? This list is based on total viewership (not Nielsen ratings) and, even if we were using Nielsen ratings, the difference between the typical potential audience size for a viewing time slot for the NFL and the typical viewing time slot for college football with how Nielsen calculates its ratings is going to be immaterial.

Whatever you want to think of the NHL, the fact remains that 7 college football games are in the top 100 most-watched TV programs of 2021 while absolutely no NBA or MLB postseason games are on that list. I just don't understand how you're refusing to see how valuable college football is as a TV property overall.

I majored in finance and was a math champion growing up, by the way. I'm not one of those fuzzy liberal arts lawyers that doesn't know how to do math. Even then, it doesn't take a math major to understand the basic sports rights value calculation that "more viewers = more money" and, in this case, college football provides the "more viewers" side of the equation better than anything other than the NFL and Olympics.

(01-20-2022 03:01 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  So forget about the NHL (the new deal is 1 billion over seven years including both Turner and ESPN unless I'm reading that wrong, which is comparable to the NBC deal per annum so I'm not even seeing your point there). But I digress.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/bl...story.html

The NHL received $350 million in broadcast revenue from NBC ($250 million) and Disney Streaming Services ($100 million for digital rights) this season. The upcoming deals will average $635 million a year ($410 million from Disney and $225 million from Turner).

The new deal with ESPN and Turner is worth an additional $285 million annually and gets them back on ESPN.