(09-05-2022 07:26 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I don't know about that. Are you suggesting the PAC 25' and 26' RB distributions are going down by losing USC/UCLA? Have we read that anywhere? I think the onus is on the networks to compensate the PAC 10 with a flexible and lucrative expanded playoff deal. It's likely the PAC 10' loses that representation in the RB if the playoff starts in Fall 24' as they are unlikely to outrank the B1G champ either year. ...

The onus for a 2024 CFP12 is on compensating all conferences for lost non-playoff contract bowl revenue.

There is no rule that allows conferences to make side deals on CFP semi-finals, for obvious reasons, but with non-playoff NY6 Bowls being replaced by QF bowls, the conference has nothing to "sell" unless the conference can specify which QF they wish to play in.

The committee announcing the QF spots does not contradict that ... so long as the specific bowls do not have guaranteed spots in the bracket, there is flexibility in fitting contracted QF bowls into bracket as seeded.

Assuming that there is some form of QF bowl contract, allowing for a conference affiliation payment in addition to a QF bowl participation payment, then the Rose Bowl signing with the Big Ten and PAC-10, whichever is higher seeded, allows an affiliation payment to both. A Rose Bowl affiliation payment to the Big Ten and PAC-10
over a first 6 year CFP12 contract cycle that has a greater (discounted) present value than the present value of the final two years of the existing Rose Bowl contracts would then be compensation for giving those two payment up.

Bowl affiliation fees and bowl participation fees seem like it might also side-steps anti-competitive practices issues with the CFP itself paying different fees to different conferences, as bowl affiliation fees are contracts between the conferences and the bowl committees.

A similar arrangement with Sugar Bowl affiliation fees and the SEC and Big12 would act as a similar form of compensation.

Now, would the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl agree to such arrangements during the first CFP12 contract cycle in order to become permanent NYD Quarterfinals aiming at hosting the Big Ten and SEC champions, respectively?

It seems like they would. Why wouldn't they?

(09-05-2022 08:40 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-05-2022 07:26 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I don't know about that. Are you suggesting the PAC 25' and 26' RB distributions are going down by losing USC/UCLA? Have we read that anywhere? I think the onus is on the networks to compensate the PAC 10 with a flexible and lucrative expanded playoff deal. It's likely the PAC 10' loses that representation in the RB if the playoff starts in Fall 24' as they are unlikely to outrank the B1G champ either year. ...

The onus for a 2024 CFP12 is on compensating all conferences for lost non-playoff contract bowl revenue.

There is no rule that allows conferences to make side deals on CFP semi-finals, for obvious reasons, but with non-playoff NY6 Bowls being replaced by QF bowls, the conference has nothing to "sell" unless the conference can specify which QF they wish to play in.

The committee announcing the QF spots does not contradict that ... so long as the specific bowls do not have guaranteed spots in the bracket, there is flexibility in fitting contracted QF bowls into bracket as seeded.

Assuming that there is some form of QF bowl contract, allowing for a conference affiliation payment in addition to a QF bowl participation payment, then the Rose Bowl signing with the Big Ten and PAC-10, whichever is higher seeded, allows an affiliation payment to both. A Rose Bowl affiliation payment to the Big Ten and PAC-10
over a first 6 year CFP12 contract cycle that has a greater (discounted) present value than the present value of the final two years of the existing Rose Bowl contracts would then be compensation for giving those two payment up.

Bowl affiliation fees and bowl participation fees seem like it might also side-steps anti-competitive practices issues with the CFP itself paying different fees to different conferences, as bowl affiliation fees are contracts between the conferences and the bowl committees.

A similar arrangement with Sugar Bowl affiliation fees and the SEC and Big12 would act as a similar form of compensation.

Now, would the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl agree to such arrangements during the first CFP12 contract cycle in order to become permanent NYD Quarterfinals aiming at hosting the Big Ten and SEC champions, respectively?

It seems like they would. Why wouldn't they?

Not really feeling this. What's the point of the tie-in if the nBig 12 and PAC 10 champs maybe outrank their equivalents from the SEC or B1G 1/10 years or so if ever? Should the former be entitled to bonus payments from Sugar/RB bowls on top of QF round base distributions for Jan 25&26' as compensation? Why would the SEC and B1G share this even for two years? Doesn't make sense. The tie-in merely serves its purpose of easing scheduling and maintaining regionality. There is no advantage sans the fact those Bowls are in prime time on NYD (and will only benefit the B1G and SEC in all likelihood both in 25' and 26' and most years beyond that).

There shouldn't be a pay scale favoring any one of the top 4 conference champs. The top 4 should receive a tier of money. The At-Large teams (and respective conferences) receive another tier. Teams advancing to the SFs and NCG (and conferences) receive separate tiers.

There is nothing in this format that favors a P5 over G5 winner sans the fact that there are five separate G5s. That's what's great about the 6+6.

But I get the impression that the nBig12 and PAC10 are simply forced to go along with the consensus instead of using the pull they have with their current contract tie-ins for the last two years. You are guaranteed an SEC and B1G game both years on NYD at the moment. With that, a 12-team playoff can wait IMO. Whatever pay increase those conferences will experience from expansion and playoff distributions should be equal across the board (aside the fact that the P2 will receive more from multiple At-Large bids).

So while there is incentive for the PAC10 and nBig12 to leverage their AQs, there is no added incentive for early expansion.

Something else that will drive conference expansion is how big that QF/NYD tier is. The Big 12 and PAC10 have every incentive to poach one another and secure a QF game every year. I think Yormark opened negotiations early knowing early expansion would pass later in the week. As of now, there is no inherent advantage of corner 4 staying in the PAC10 aside from the fact that they'd compete with 15 teams in a Big 16 as opposed to 9 teams in the PAC.

It will be very interesting once we get preliminary numbers. I'd like to see the Orange and Cotton get locked in Jan 1st-2nd. Peach and Fiesta are ideal annual SFs. NCG bid out. Just find the most corporate, warm weather, regional cities you can find to sell tickets and fill stadiums.

Reading more, I have to agree that the reason the "2nd weekend of December" was listed as "12 days after" the CCGs, was because the commissioners were open to moving the CCGs up.

Not sure why that would be preferable to simply having the first-round on the 3rd weekend of December (unless, again, they were trying to squeeze an additional round in December).

Also, with regard to the Rose Bowl's peculiar desires: I would not be surprised if TPTB end up pulling a "2006". All 6 bowls are kept 'around' New Years Day, and 2 get the opportunity to "double host" semifinals 9+ days later.

I don't know why you wouldn't make Round 1 3rd week of Dec
The final 8 New Years Day +/- Dec 31 or Jan 2

I also think they could do a thing where the losers of Round 1 (games between seeds 5 and 12) could go to late Dec bowl games

(09-09-2022 09:48 AM)jgkojak Wrote:  I don't know why you wouldn't make Round 1 3rd week of Dec
The final 8 New Years Day +/- Dec 31 or Jan 2

I also think they could do a thing where the losers of Round 1 (games between seeds 5 and 12) could go to late Dec bowl games

Yeah - I think we're getting way too hung up on the "2nd week of December" reference.

I'm not saying that it's *impossible* for the CCGs to move back a week, but pretty much every financial incentive of everyone that actually matters (e.g. the Big Ten and SEC) would push back against that happening. Plus, it makes even less sense if the idea to extend the championship game date all the way until late January or even the week before the Super Bowl (which would almost always be February). There's no point in condensing the front end of the playoffs if you're going to still stretch out the back end of the playoffs.

As fans, we generally want a condensed schedule, but we seem to be heading toward the exact opposite where the Powers That Be and TV networks may be looking to stretch this out to be a nearly 2-month-long event.

(09-05-2022 08:40 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-05-2022 07:26 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I don't know about that. Are you suggesting the PAC 25' and 26' RB distributions are going down by losing USC/UCLA? Have we read that anywhere? I think the onus is on the networks to compensate the PAC 10 with a flexible and lucrative expanded playoff deal. It's likely the PAC 10' loses that representation in the RB if the playoff starts in Fall 24' as they are unlikely to outrank the B1G champ either year. ...

The onus for a 2024 CFP12 is on compensating all conferences for lost non-playoff contract bowl revenue.

There is no rule that allows conferences to make side deals on CFP semi-finals, for obvious reasons, but with non-playoff NY6 Bowls being replaced by QF bowls, the conference has nothing to "sell" unless the conference can specify which QF they wish to play in.

The committee announcing the QF spots does not contradict that ... so long as the specific bowls do not have guaranteed spots in the bracket, there is flexibility in fitting contracted QF bowls into bracket as seeded.

Assuming that there is some form of QF bowl contract, allowing for a conference affiliation payment in addition to a QF bowl participation payment, then the Rose Bowl signing with the Big Ten and PAC-10, whichever is higher seeded, allows an affiliation payment to both. A Rose Bowl affiliation payment to the Big Ten and PAC-10
over a first 6 year CFP12 contract cycle that has a greater (discounted) present value than the present value of the final two years of the existing Rose Bowl contracts would then be compensation for giving those two payment up.

Bowl affiliation fees and bowl participation fees seem like it might also side-steps anti-competitive practices issues with the CFP itself paying different fees to different conferences, as bowl affiliation fees are contracts between the conferences and the bowl committees.

A similar arrangement with Sugar Bowl affiliation fees and the SEC and Big12 would act as a similar form of compensation.

Now, would the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl agree to such arrangements during the first CFP12 contract cycle in order to become permanent NYD Quarterfinals aiming at hosting the Big Ten and SEC champions, respectively?

It seems like they would. Why wouldn't they?

What's the point of the Rose Bowl tie-in tradition? The Pac just got its heart eaten by the Big Ten. Just keep the game as a quarterfinal yearly if they want NYD, which is all of the tradition that's left.

Regarding another post, I don't see double hosting happening. There are currently six access bowls and they're going to keep it that way. The six access bowls remain as quarter and semifinals on a rotating basis and let the Rose opt out if they want. Place the bye-week teams where they want by rank order.

Let's say the final standings are:

1- UNC
2- Alabama
3- USC
4- Georgia

The bowls are Rose, Sugar, Peach, and Cotton with the Fiesta and Orange hosting semis.

UNC selects the Peach, Bama the Sugar, USC the Rose, and UGA gets left with the Cotton.

(09-09-2022 10:03 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-05-2022 08:40 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-05-2022 07:26 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I don't know about that. Are you suggesting the PAC 25' and 26' RB distributions are going down by losing USC/UCLA? Have we read that anywhere? I think the onus is on the networks to compensate the PAC 10 with a flexible and lucrative expanded playoff deal. It's likely the PAC 10' loses that representation in the RB if the playoff starts in Fall 24' as they are unlikely to outrank the B1G champ either year. ...

The onus for a 2024 CFP12 is on compensating all conferences for lost non-playoff contract bowl revenue.

There is no rule that allows conferences to make side deals on CFP semi-finals, for obvious reasons, but with non-playoff NY6 Bowls being replaced by QF bowls, the conference has nothing to "sell" unless the conference can specify which QF they wish to play in.

The committee announcing the QF spots does not contradict that ... so long as the specific bowls do not have guaranteed spots in the bracket, there is flexibility in fitting contracted QF bowls into bracket as seeded.

Assuming that there is some form of QF bowl contract, allowing for a conference affiliation payment in addition to a QF bowl participation payment, then the Rose Bowl signing with the Big Ten and PAC-10, whichever is higher seeded, allows an affiliation payment to both. A Rose Bowl affiliation payment to the Big Ten and PAC-10
over a first 6 year CFP12 contract cycle that has a greater (discounted) present value than the present value of the final two years of the existing Rose Bowl contracts would then be compensation for giving those two payment up.

Bowl affiliation fees and bowl participation fees seem like it might also side-steps anti-competitive practices issues with the CFP itself paying different fees to different conferences, as bowl affiliation fees are contracts between the conferences and the bowl committees.

A similar arrangement with Sugar Bowl affiliation fees and the SEC and Big12 would act as a similar form of compensation.

Now, would the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl agree to such arrangements during the first CFP12 contract cycle in order to become permanent NYD Quarterfinals aiming at hosting the Big Ten and SEC champions, respectively?

It seems like they would. Why wouldn't they?

What's the point of the Rose Bowl tie-in tradition? The Pac just got its heart eaten by the Big Ten. Just keep the game as a quarterfinal yearly if they want NYD, which is all of the tradition that's left.

The point of the Rose Bowl tradition is the Tournament of Roses parade, which gets around 2x the TV ratings than the Rose Bowl football game does.

(09-09-2022 10:06 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-09-2022 10:03 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-05-2022 08:40 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-05-2022 07:26 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I don't know about that. Are you suggesting the PAC 25' and 26' RB distributions are going down by losing USC/UCLA? Have we read that anywhere? I think the onus is on the networks to compensate the PAC 10 with a flexible and lucrative expanded playoff deal. It's likely the PAC 10' loses that representation in the RB if the playoff starts in Fall 24' as they are unlikely to outrank the B1G champ either year. ...

The onus for a 2024 CFP12 is on compensating all conferences for lost non-playoff contract bowl revenue.

There is no rule that allows conferences to make side deals on CFP semi-finals, for obvious reasons, but with non-playoff NY6 Bowls being replaced by QF bowls, the conference has nothing to "sell" unless the conference can specify which QF they wish to play in.

The committee announcing the QF spots does not contradict that ... so long as the specific bowls do not have guaranteed spots in the bracket, there is flexibility in fitting contracted QF bowls into bracket as seeded.

Assuming that there is some form of QF bowl contract, allowing for a conference affiliation payment in addition to a QF bowl participation payment, then the Rose Bowl signing with the Big Ten and PAC-10, whichever is higher seeded, allows an affiliation payment to both. A Rose Bowl affiliation payment to the Big Ten and PAC-10
over a first 6 year CFP12 contract cycle that has a greater (discounted) present value than the present value of the final two years of the existing Rose Bowl contracts would then be compensation for giving those two payment up.

Bowl affiliation fees and bowl participation fees seem like it might also side-steps anti-competitive practices issues with the CFP itself paying different fees to different conferences, as bowl affiliation fees are contracts between the conferences and the bowl committees.

A similar arrangement with Sugar Bowl affiliation fees and the SEC and Big12 would act as a similar form of compensation.

Now, would the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl agree to such arrangements during the first CFP12 contract cycle in order to become permanent NYD Quarterfinals aiming at hosting the Big Ten and SEC champions, respectively?

It seems like they would. Why wouldn't they?

What's the point of the Rose Bowl tie-in tradition? The Pac just got its heart eaten by the Big Ten. Just keep the game as a quarterfinal yearly if they want NYD, which is all of the tradition that's left.

The point of the Rose Bowl tradition is the Tournament of Roses parade, which gets around 2x the TV ratings than the Rose Bowl football game does.

I know that, I took it into account with the date. I'm talking about the conference tie-in.

(09-09-2022 10:15 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-09-2022 10:06 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-09-2022 10:03 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-05-2022 08:40 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-05-2022 07:26 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I don't know about that. Are you suggesting the PAC 25' and 26' RB distributions are going down by losing USC/UCLA? Have we read that anywhere? I think the onus is on the networks to compensate the PAC 10 with a flexible and lucrative expanded playoff deal. It's likely the PAC 10' loses that representation in the RB if the playoff starts in Fall 24' as they are unlikely to outrank the B1G champ either year. ...

The onus for a 2024 CFP12 is on compensating all conferences for lost non-playoff contract bowl revenue.

There is no rule that allows conferences to make side deals on CFP semi-finals, for obvious reasons, but with non-playoff NY6 Bowls being replaced by QF bowls, the conference has nothing to "sell" unless the conference can specify which QF they wish to play in.

The committee announcing the QF spots does not contradict that ... so long as the specific bowls do not have guaranteed spots in the bracket, there is flexibility in fitting contracted QF bowls into bracket as seeded.

Assuming that there is some form of QF bowl contract, allowing for a conference affiliation payment in addition to a QF bowl participation payment, then the Rose Bowl signing with the Big Ten and PAC-10, whichever is higher seeded, allows an affiliation payment to both. A Rose Bowl affiliation payment to the Big Ten and PAC-10
over a first 6 year CFP12 contract cycle that has a greater (discounted) present value than the present value of the final two years of the existing Rose Bowl contracts would then be compensation for giving those two payment up.

Bowl affiliation fees and bowl participation fees seem like it might also side-steps anti-competitive practices issues with the CFP itself paying different fees to different conferences, as bowl affiliation fees are contracts between the conferences and the bowl committees.

A similar arrangement with Sugar Bowl affiliation fees and the SEC and Big12 would act as a similar form of compensation.

Now, would the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl agree to such arrangements during the first CFP12 contract cycle in order to become permanent NYD Quarterfinals aiming at hosting the Big Ten and SEC champions, respectively?

It seems like they would. Why wouldn't they?

What's the point of the Rose Bowl tie-in tradition? The Pac just got its heart eaten by the Big Ten. Just keep the game as a quarterfinal yearly if they want NYD, which is all of the tradition that's left.

The point of the Rose Bowl tradition is the Tournament of Roses parade, which gets around 2x the TV ratings than the Rose Bowl football game does.

I know that, I took it into account with the date. I'm talking about the conference tie-in.

Fair enough. The point of the tie-in is that the Big Ten wants the Rose Bowl, so they'll probably get it. Nobody else really cares where their champ plays (okay the PAC may still care about the Rose Bowl, but nobody cares that the PAC cares)

(09-09-2022 10:15 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-09-2022 10:06 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-09-2022 10:03 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-05-2022 08:40 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-05-2022 07:26 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I don't know about that. Are you suggesting the PAC 25' and 26' RB distributions are going down by losing USC/UCLA? Have we read that anywhere? I think the onus is on the networks to compensate the PAC 10 with a flexible and lucrative expanded playoff deal. It's likely the PAC 10' loses that representation in the RB if the playoff starts in Fall 24' as they are unlikely to outrank the B1G champ either year. ...

The onus for a 2024 CFP12 is on compensating all conferences for lost non-playoff contract bowl revenue.

There is no rule that allows conferences to make side deals on CFP semi-finals, for obvious reasons, but with non-playoff NY6 Bowls being replaced by QF bowls, the conference has nothing to "sell" unless the conference can specify which QF they wish to play in.

The committee announcing the QF spots does not contradict that ... so long as the specific bowls do not have guaranteed spots in the bracket, there is flexibility in fitting contracted QF bowls into bracket as seeded.

Assuming that there is some form of QF bowl contract, allowing for a conference affiliation payment in addition to a QF bowl participation payment, then the Rose Bowl signing with the Big Ten and PAC-10, whichever is higher seeded, allows an affiliation payment to both. A Rose Bowl affiliation payment to the Big Ten and PAC-10
over a first 6 year CFP12 contract cycle that has a greater (discounted) present value than the present value of the final two years of the existing Rose Bowl contracts would then be compensation for giving those two payment up.

Bowl affiliation fees and bowl participation fees seem like it might also side-steps anti-competitive practices issues with the CFP itself paying different fees to different conferences, as bowl affiliation fees are contracts between the conferences and the bowl committees.

A similar arrangement with Sugar Bowl affiliation fees and the SEC and Big12 would act as a similar form of compensation.

Now, would the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl agree to such arrangements during the first CFP12 contract cycle in order to become permanent NYD Quarterfinals aiming at hosting the Big Ten and SEC champions, respectively?

It seems like they would. Why wouldn't they?

What's the point of the Rose Bowl tie-in tradition? The Pac just got its heart eaten by the Big Ten. Just keep the game as a quarterfinal yearly if they want NYD, which is all of the tradition that's left.

The point of the Rose Bowl tradition is the Tournament of Roses parade, which gets around 2x the TV ratings than the Rose Bowl football game does.

I know that, I took it into account with the date. I'm talking about the conference tie-in.

Putting aside the Pac-12, let's look at it from the Big Ten perspective.

The Rose Bowl has always been seen as uniquely valuable to the Big Ten. I understand that people from other leagues often don't understand it, deny that it's valuable, or simply want the Big Ten to unilaterally give up something that's objectively very valuable so that the rest of college sports can make more money even though the Big Ten isn't getting compensated for giving it up. (And no, getting the same increase in money as everyone else is not compensation. It needs to be much more above and beyond everyone else's share because the Big Ten and Pac-12 are the only ones giving up something of great value.)

However, there are two parties that matter in any CFP discussion going forward: the Big Ten and SEC.

After 120-plus years, the Rose Bowl is now a game being played in a Big Ten stadium in a Big Ten market. That still sounds weird even to me, but that's going to be the case starting in 2024. Note that the Big Ten has *never* had a top tier bowl tie-in within its footprint. Even the old Big East had the Orange Bowl when Miami was a member of that league.

So, it stands to reason now that the Big Ten (a) is more powerful than ever and (b) effectively now *owns* the Rose Bowl for all intents and purposes, the *last* thing that the Big Ten would be doing is giving up its tie-in or, at the very least, ensuring that a Big Ten champ that's a top 4 champ goes to the Rose Bowl. I know college football talk can often be Southern-biased, but it feels like people forget that half of the country is straight-up awful to be outside in January when they're always pushing for playoff games at home stadiums. Sure, that's great in Gainesville and Austin, but places like Ann Arbor and Madison are objectively terrible in January weather-wise, so yeah, the Big Ten actually *wants* to travel to Pasadena every January.

I know that home games for the quarterfinals wasn't what you're suggesting, but it needs to be explained that playoff home games or even bowls in the Midwest generally aren't actually a benefit for the Big Ten schools and that their "winter home" has always been the Rose Bowl. That's going to be even more the case now that the Rose Bowl is an actual Big Ten home stadium. It's why the "obvious" belief that everyone supposedly wants home playoff games isn't quite so obvious when one of the two conferences that matters - the Big Ten - isn't actually thinking that way.

(09-09-2022 10:31 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-09-2022 10:15 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-09-2022 10:06 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-09-2022 10:03 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-05-2022 08:40 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  The onus for a 2024 CFP12 is on compensating all conferences for lost non-playoff contract bowl revenue.

There is no rule that allows conferences to make side deals on CFP semi-finals, for obvious reasons, but with non-playoff NY6 Bowls being replaced by QF bowls, the conference has nothing to "sell" unless the conference can specify which QF they wish to play in.

The committee announcing the QF spots does not contradict that ... so long as the specific bowls do not have guaranteed spots in the bracket, there is flexibility in fitting contracted QF bowls into bracket as seeded.

Assuming that there is some form of QF bowl contract, allowing for a conference affiliation payment in addition to a QF bowl participation payment, then the Rose Bowl signing with the Big Ten and PAC-10, whichever is higher seeded, allows an affiliation payment to both. A Rose Bowl affiliation payment to the Big Ten and PAC-10
over a first 6 year CFP12 contract cycle that has a greater (discounted) present value than the present value of the final two years of the existing Rose Bowl contracts would then be compensation for giving those two payment up.

Bowl affiliation fees and bowl participation fees seem like it might also side-steps anti-competitive practices issues with the CFP itself paying different fees to different conferences, as bowl affiliation fees are contracts between the conferences and the bowl committees.

A similar arrangement with Sugar Bowl affiliation fees and the SEC and Big12 would act as a similar form of compensation.

Now, would the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl agree to such arrangements during the first CFP12 contract cycle in order to become permanent NYD Quarterfinals aiming at hosting the Big Ten and SEC champions, respectively?

It seems like they would. Why wouldn't they?

What's the point of the Rose Bowl tie-in tradition? The Pac just got its heart eaten by the Big Ten. Just keep the game as a quarterfinal yearly if they want NYD, which is all of the tradition that's left.

The point of the Rose Bowl tradition is the Tournament of Roses parade, which gets around 2x the TV ratings than the Rose Bowl football game does.

I know that, I took it into account with the date. I'm talking about the conference tie-in.

Putting aside the Pac-12, let's look at it from the Big Ten perspective.

The Rose Bowl has always been seen as uniquely valuable to the Big Ten. I understand that people from other leagues often don't understand it, deny that it's valuable, or simply want the Big Ten to unilaterally give up something that's objectively very valuable so that the rest of college sports can make more money even though the Big Ten isn't getting compensated for giving it up. (And no, getting the same increase in money as everyone else is not compensation. It needs to be much more above and beyond everyone else's share because the Big Ten and Pac-12 are the only ones giving up something of great value.)

However, there are two parties that matter in any CFP discussion going forward: the Big Ten and SEC.

After 120-plus years, the Rose Bowl is now a game being played in a Big Ten stadium in a Big Ten market. That still sounds weird even to me, but that's going to be the case starting in 2024. Note that the Big Ten has *never* had a top tier bowl tie-in within its footprint. Even the old Big East had the Orange Bowl when Miami was a member of that league.

So, it stands to reason now that the Big Ten (a) is more powerful than ever and (b) effectively now *owns* the Rose Bowl for all intents and purposes, the *last* thing that the Big Ten would be doing is giving up its tie-in or, at the very least, ensuring that a Big Ten champ that's a top 4 champ goes to the Rose Bowl. I know college football talk can often be Southern-biased, but it feels like people forget that half of the country is straight-up awful to be outside in January when they're always pushing for playoff games at home stadiums. Sure, that's great in Gainesville and Austin, but places like Ann Arbor and Madison are objectively terrible in January weather-wise, so yeah, the Big Ten actually *wants* to travel to Pasadena every January.

I know that home games for the quarterfinals wasn't what you're suggesting, but it needs to be explained that playoff home games or even bowls in the Midwest generally aren't actually a benefit for the Big Ten schools and that their "winter home" has always been the Rose Bowl. That's going to be even more the case now that the Rose Bowl is an actual Big Ten home stadium. It's why the "obvious" belief that everyone supposedly wants home playoff games isn't quite so obvious when one of the two conferences that matters - the Big Ten - isn't actually thinking that way.

I get where you're coming from, and I'm not some ignorant fanboy that wants them to "have to give it up", but if a Big Ten team isn't in the top four, then they don't get a guarantee to the Rose Bowl. Sorry, I don't see any way around that when designing a playoff that both the Rose Bowl and Big Ten want to be a part of. Frankly, (no pun intended) those two parties have been major impediments to progress for an inclusive playoff or sensible postseason... for yeeeeears.

Maybe the highest ranked Big Ten/Pac 10 team in the top four can be guaranteed a Rose Bowl bid. I don't see any other conferences caring about it really.

My main point: the national championship playoff should NOT be designed around the Big Ten/Rose Bowl relationship. What are they going to do? Take their ball and go home again?

(09-09-2022 11:19 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-09-2022 10:31 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-09-2022 10:15 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-09-2022 10:06 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-09-2022 10:03 AM)esayem Wrote:  What's the point of the Rose Bowl tie-in tradition? The Pac just got its heart eaten by the Big Ten. Just keep the game as a quarterfinal yearly if they want NYD, which is all of the tradition that's left.

The point of the Rose Bowl tradition is the Tournament of Roses parade, which gets around 2x the TV ratings than the Rose Bowl football game does.

I know that, I took it into account with the date. I'm talking about the conference tie-in.

Putting aside the Pac-12, let's look at it from the Big Ten perspective.

The Rose Bowl has always been seen as uniquely valuable to the Big Ten. I understand that people from other leagues often don't understand it, deny that it's valuable, or simply want the Big Ten to unilaterally give up something that's objectively very valuable so that the rest of college sports can make more money even though the Big Ten isn't getting compensated for giving it up. (And no, getting the same increase in money as everyone else is not compensation. It needs to be much more above and beyond everyone else's share because the Big Ten and Pac-12 are the only ones giving up something of great value.)

However, there are two parties that matter in any CFP discussion going forward: the Big Ten and SEC.

After 120-plus years, the Rose Bowl is now a game being played in a Big Ten stadium in a Big Ten market. That still sounds weird even to me, but that's going to be the case starting in 2024. Note that the Big Ten has *never* had a top tier bowl tie-in within its footprint. Even the old Big East had the Orange Bowl when Miami was a member of that league.

So, it stands to reason now that the Big Ten (a) is more powerful than ever and (b) effectively now *owns* the Rose Bowl for all intents and purposes, the *last* thing that the Big Ten would be doing is giving up its tie-in or, at the very least, ensuring that a Big Ten champ that's a top 4 champ goes to the Rose Bowl. I know college football talk can often be Southern-biased, but it feels like people forget that half of the country is straight-up awful to be outside in January when they're always pushing for playoff games at home stadiums. Sure, that's great in Gainesville and Austin, but places like Ann Arbor and Madison are objectively terrible in January weather-wise, so yeah, the Big Ten actually *wants* to travel to Pasadena every January.

I know that home games for the quarterfinals wasn't what you're suggesting, but it needs to be explained that playoff home games or even bowls in the Midwest generally aren't actually a benefit for the Big Ten schools and that their "winter home" has always been the Rose Bowl. That's going to be even more the case now that the Rose Bowl is an actual Big Ten home stadium. It's why the "obvious" belief that everyone supposedly wants home playoff games isn't quite so obvious when one of the two conferences that matters - the Big Ten - isn't actually thinking that way.

I get where you're coming from, and I'm not some ignorant fanboy that wants them to "have to give it up", but if a Big Ten team isn't in the top four, then they don't get a guarantee to the Rose Bowl. Sorry, I don't see any way around that when designing a playoff that both the Rose Bowl and Big Ten want to be a part of. Frankly, (no pun intended) those two parties have been major impediments to progress for an inclusive playoff or sensible postseason... for yeeeeears.

Maybe the highest ranked Big Ten/Pac 10 team in the top four can be guaranteed a Rose Bowl bid. I don't see any other conferences caring about it really.

My main point: the national championship playoff should NOT be designed around the Big Ten/Rose Bowl relationship. What are they going to do? Take their ball and go home again?

FWIW, I think the bolded is really what we mean by a “tie-in” with the expanded playoff: if a Big Ten or Pac-12 school is a top 4 champ, then they (or the higher ranked of the two if both leagues have top 4 champs) get slotted in the Rose Bowl. It’s not to guarantee that the Big Ten vs. Pac-12 guaranteed matchup continues.

That being said, the Big Ten is more powerful in these discussions than they were a year ago. There is no playoff without the Big Ten or SEC, so the Big Ten has the hypothetical leverage to take their ball and go home (not that I think they’ll do that).

(09-06-2022 02:10 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(09-05-2022 08:40 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-05-2022 07:26 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I don't know about that. Are you suggesting the PAC 25' and 26' RB distributions are going down by losing USC/UCLA? Have we read that anywhere? I think the onus is on the networks to compensate the PAC 10 with a flexible and lucrative expanded playoff deal. It's likely the PAC 10' loses that representation in the RB if the playoff starts in Fall 24' as they are unlikely to outrank the B1G champ either year. ...

The onus for a 2024 CFP12 is on compensating all conferences for lost non-playoff contract bowl revenue.

There is no rule that allows conferences to make side deals on CFP semi-finals, for obvious reasons, but with non-playoff NY6 Bowls being replaced by QF bowls, the conference has nothing to "sell" unless the conference can specify which QF they wish to play in.

The committee announcing the QF spots does not contradict that ... so long as the specific bowls do not have guaranteed spots in the bracket, there is flexibility in fitting contracted QF bowls into bracket as seeded.

Assuming that there is some form of QF bowl contract, allowing for a conference affiliation payment in addition to a QF bowl participation payment, then the Rose Bowl signing with the Big Ten and PAC-10, whichever is higher seeded, allows an affiliation payment to both. A Rose Bowl affiliation payment to the Big Ten and PAC-10
over a first 6 year CFP12 contract cycle that has a greater (discounted) present value than the present value of the final two years of the existing Rose Bowl contracts would then be compensation for giving those two payment up.

Bowl affiliation fees and bowl participation fees seem like it might also side-steps anti-competitive practices issues with the CFP itself paying different fees to different conferences, as bowl affiliation fees are contracts between the conferences and the bowl committees.

A similar arrangement with Sugar Bowl affiliation fees and the SEC and Big12 would act as a similar form of compensation.

Now, would the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl agree to such arrangements during the first CFP12 contract cycle in order to become permanent NYD Quarterfinals aiming at hosting the Big Ten and SEC champions, respectively?

It seems like they would. Why wouldn't they?

Not really feeling this. What's the point of the tie-in if the nBig 12 and PAC 10 champs maybe outrank their equivalents from the SEC or B1G 1/10 years or so if ever? Should the former be entitled to bonus payments from Sugar/RB bowls on top of QF round base distributions for Jan 25&26' as compensation? Why would the SEC and B1G share this even for two years? Doesn't make sense. The tie-in merely serves its purpose of easing scheduling and maintaining regionality. There is no advantage sans the fact those Bowls are in prime time on NYD (and will only benefit the B1G and SEC in all likelihood both in 25' and 26' and most years beyond that).

The question is whether there is more money available to the bowl in the television contract if it is a QF over being a non-championship exhibition of best schools from the conference to miss the CFP4.

If there isn't more money available for being the second round of the CFP on NYD versus being an exhibition game on NYD then, no, there is no incentive to the Rose Bowl committee to agree to changing the current contract.

If there is more money available, then the increment is the incentive to make the deal happen early.

Quote: There shouldn't be a pay scale favoring any one of the top 4 conference champs. The top 4 should receive a tier of money. The At-Large teams (and respective conferences) receive another tier. Teams advancing to the SFs and NCG (and conferences) receive separate tiers.

When not hosting a Semi-Final the Contract Bowls pay (per 2019):

Rose Bowl: $40m
Sugar Bowl: $40m
Orange Bowl: $27.5m
Contract Bowls (Peach, Cotton, Fiesta): $4m

It seems like the whole "there shouldn't be a pay scale favoring any CFP Contract Conference over any other" was an option they passed on setting up the CFP system.

Of course, they did the discrimination with side payments between conferences and bowls and a tiered structure of non-CFP year contract tie-ins.

But they won't be able to bring the CFP12 forward to 2024 without making the conferences good for what they would have earned under the entire CFP4/NY6 system, including both the "respectable" equal payments for every Contract Conference & equal participation fee for each SF participant in the CFP LLC to Conference payments, and the tawdry "different conferences make different amounts of money" in the Non-SF Contract Bowl agreements.

Indeed, if they don't have some form of Contract between the bowl committees and the conferences, then the whole basis for discriminating between the P5 and the Go5 in CFP4 payouts goes away. Otherwise they have to just write the list of conferences that get more money and the list of conferences that get less money into the contract, instead of using the "market decision" of the Contract Bowls to establish the distinction.

__________________

(09-09-2022 11:19 AM)esayem Wrote:  I get where you're coming from, and I'm not some ignorant fanboy that wants them to "have to give it up", but if a Big Ten team isn't in the top four, then they don't get a guarantee to the Rose Bowl. ...

Of course not, and that's not what is being discussed here. The foundation for a "tie-in" under the agreement might be, for example, the conferences are allowed to nominate in advance, which QF bowl they wish to appear in, which are then allocated in seed order, #1 to #4.

Given that rule, then Conferences can contract with Bowls to nominate them.

Given that ability, Bowls can pay conferences to agree to nominate them.

(09-09-2022 11:42 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-09-2022 11:19 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-09-2022 10:31 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-09-2022 10:15 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-09-2022 10:06 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  The point of the Rose Bowl tradition is the Tournament of Roses parade, which gets around 2x the TV ratings than the Rose Bowl football game does.

I know that, I took it into account with the date. I'm talking about the conference tie-in.

Putting aside the Pac-12, let's look at it from the Big Ten perspective.

The Rose Bowl has always been seen as uniquely valuable to the Big Ten. I understand that people from other leagues often don't understand it, deny that it's valuable, or simply want the Big Ten to unilaterally give up something that's objectively very valuable so that the rest of college sports can make more money even though the Big Ten isn't getting compensated for giving it up. (And no, getting the same increase in money as everyone else is not compensation. It needs to be much more above and beyond everyone else's share because the Big Ten and Pac-12 are the only ones giving up something of great value.)

However, there are two parties that matter in any CFP discussion going forward: the Big Ten and SEC.

After 120-plus years, the Rose Bowl is now a game being played in a Big Ten stadium in a Big Ten market. That still sounds weird even to me, but that's going to be the case starting in 2024. Note that the Big Ten has *never* had a top tier bowl tie-in within its footprint. Even the old Big East had the Orange Bowl when Miami was a member of that league.

So, it stands to reason now that the Big Ten (a) is more powerful than ever and (b) effectively now *owns* the Rose Bowl for all intents and purposes, the *last* thing that the Big Ten would be doing is giving up its tie-in or, at the very least, ensuring that a Big Ten champ that's a top 4 champ goes to the Rose Bowl. I know college football talk can often be Southern-biased, but it feels like people forget that half of the country is straight-up awful to be outside in January when they're always pushing for playoff games at home stadiums. Sure, that's great in Gainesville and Austin, but places like Ann Arbor and Madison are objectively terrible in January weather-wise, so yeah, the Big Ten actually *wants* to travel to Pasadena every January.

I know that home games for the quarterfinals wasn't what you're suggesting, but it needs to be explained that playoff home games or even bowls in the Midwest generally aren't actually a benefit for the Big Ten schools and that their "winter home" has always been the Rose Bowl. That's going to be even more the case now that the Rose Bowl is an actual Big Ten home stadium. It's why the "obvious" belief that everyone supposedly wants home playoff games isn't quite so obvious when one of the two conferences that matters - the Big Ten - isn't actually thinking that way.

I get where you're coming from, and I'm not some ignorant fanboy that wants them to "have to give it up", but if a Big Ten team isn't in the top four, then they don't get a guarantee to the Rose Bowl. Sorry, I don't see any way around that when designing a playoff that both the Rose Bowl and Big Ten want to be a part of. Frankly, (no pun intended) those two parties have been major impediments to progress for an inclusive playoff or sensible postseason... for yeeeeears.

Maybe the highest ranked Big Ten/Pac 10 team in the top four can be guaranteed a Rose Bowl bid. I don't see any other conferences caring about it really.

My main point: the national championship playoff should NOT be designed around the Big Ten/Rose Bowl relationship. What are they going to do? Take their ball and go home again?

FWIW, I think the bolded is really what we mean by a “tie-in” with the expanded playoff: if a Big Ten or Pac-12 school is a top 4 champ, then they (or the higher ranked of the two if both leagues have top 4 champs) get slotted in the Rose Bowl. It’s not to guarantee that the Big Ten vs. Pac-12 guaranteed matchup continues.

That being said, the Big Ten is more powerful in these discussions than they were a year ago. There is no playoff without the Big Ten or SEC, so the Big Ten has the hypothetical leverage to take their ball and go home (not that I think they’ll do that).

…and I certainly don’t think not playing in the Rose Bowl would be the reason they walk. Not with more billions at stake.

I think the Rose Bowl cares about the date and maybe some traditionalists (not Warren) care about the tie-in. Fans love it because it used to actually mean something. Many fans still haven’t come to grips that it’s just another bowl game, now at the same level as the once laughable Peach Bowl and the opportunistic Fiesta Bowl.

(09-09-2022 02:52 PM)esayem Wrote:  …and I certainly don’t think not playing in the Rose Bowl would be the reason they walk. Not with more billions at stake. ...

It's not billions for the Big Ten at stake in the CFP12 going ahead in 2026 instead of 2024. It's the increment in Big Ten's share of an ESPN deal starting in 2024 rather than 2026, minus the Big Ten's view of their likely share of any benefit of taking the 2026 rights to the open market, minus $80m from the Rose Bowl (and anything that may still be coming the Big Ten's way from their share of the 2025 Orange Bowl, though I don't know whether they have exhausted their share of Orange Bowl appearances).

(09-09-2022 02:52 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-09-2022 11:42 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-09-2022 11:19 AM)esayem Wrote:  I get where you're coming from, and I'm not some ignorant fanboy that wants them to "have to give it up", but if a Big Ten team isn't in the top four, then they don't get a guarantee to the Rose Bowl.

Well, based on what was agreed and announced a week or so ago (6+6, top 4 champs hosting quarterfinal bowls with historic tie-ins where possible) the Big Ten has agreed to that. IF they're not top 6, no playoff. If they're not top 4, they go to the first round games.

Quote:Maybe the highest ranked Big Ten/Pac 10 team in the top four can be guaranteed a Rose Bowl bid. I don't see any other conferences caring about it really.

The CFP press release says they've agreed to that. The Big Ten has given up on fully automatic bids, the southerners have agreed to let the Big Ten keep the Rose Bowl. Details TBD (quarterfinal every year? what about the Rose as a semi? What about the PAC 12?), but that's the outline of the agreement.

Quote:…and I certainly don’t think not playing in the Rose Bowl would be the reason they walk. Not with more billions at stake.

Well, the SEC and co have made a different calculation, and conceded the Rose Bowl to the Big Ten.

When the full story comes out, it may be that the last year-and-change was spent fighting over whether the Rose Bowl gets special treatment in the new system or not, as well as whether ESPN has to go to a competitive bidding process or just signs a big fat (but still under-market) extension.

Quote:I think the Rose Bowl cares about the date and maybe some traditionalists (not Warren) care about the tie-in. Fans love it because it used to actually mean something. Many fans still haven’t come to grips that it’s just another bowl game, now at the same level as the once laughable Peach Bowl and the opportunistic Fiesta Bowl.

No, it's not at all at the same level as the Chik-Fil-A Bowl (as it was for a while before it became an NY6 game) or the Fiesta Bowl. The Rose Bowl and Tournament of Roses Parade etc are an event, like the Texas State Fair and the Red River Rivalry / Shootout, like The Game (Michigan-OSU), like the Iron Bowl, like the Worlds Greatest Outdoor Cocktail Party. The rest of the bowls are just generic neutral-site games in NFL stadiums, like the Oregon-Georgia game last weekend, or the A&M-Arkansas game at JerryWorld every year.

The entire reason that the Rose Bowl and the Big Ten are being difficult, and have been difficult for 30 years, about the timeslot and about the Big Ten-PAC matchup is to prevent the Rose Bowl from being reduced to the level of the Fiesta/Peach/Cotton/Sugar bowls. Once that egg is broken, humpty dumpty can't be put back together again.

(09-09-2022 03:39 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-09-2022 02:52 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-09-2022 11:42 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-09-2022 11:19 AM)esayem Wrote:  I get where you're coming from, and I'm not some ignorant fanboy that wants them to "have to give it up", but if a Big Ten team isn't in the top four, then they don't get a guarantee to the Rose Bowl.

Well, based on what was agreed and announced a week or so ago (6+6, top 4 champs hosting quarterfinal bowls with historic tie-ins where possible) the Big Ten has agreed to that. IF they're not top 6, no playoff. If they're not top 4, they go to the first round games.

Quote:Maybe the highest ranked Big Ten/Pac 10 team in the top four can be guaranteed a Rose Bowl bid. I don't see any other conferences caring about it really.

The CFP press release says they've agreed to that. The Big Ten has given up on fully automatic bids, the southerners have agreed to let the Big Ten keep the Rose Bowl. Details TBD (quarterfinal every year? what about the Rose as a semi? What about the PAC 12?), but that's the outline of the agreement.

Quote:…and I certainly don’t think not playing in the Rose Bowl would be the reason they walk. Not with more billions at stake.

Well, the SEC and co have made a different calculation, and conceded the Rose Bowl to the Big Ten.

When the full story comes out, it may be that the last year-and-change was spent fighting over whether the Rose Bowl gets special treatment in the new system or not, as well as whether ESPN has to go to a competitive bidding process or just signs a big fat (but still under-market) extension.

Quote:I think the Rose Bowl cares about the date and maybe some traditionalists (not Warren) care about the tie-in. Fans love it because it used to actually mean something. Many fans still haven’t come to grips that it’s just another bowl game, now at the same level as the once laughable Peach Bowl and the opportunistic Fiesta Bowl.

No, it's not at all at the same level as the Chik-Fil-A Bowl (as it was for a while before it became an NY6 game) or the Fiesta Bowl. The Rose Bowl and Tournament of Roses Parade etc are an event, like the Texas State Fair and the Red River Rivalry / Shootout, like The Game (Michigan-OSU), like the Iron Bowl, like the Worlds Greatest Outdoor Cocktail Party. The rest of the bowls are just generic neutral-site games in NFL stadiums, like the Oregon-Georgia game last weekend, or the A&M-Arkansas game at JerryWorld every year.

The entire reason that the Rose Bowl and the Big Ten are being difficult, and have been difficult for 30 years, about the timeslot and about the Big Ten-PAC matchup is to prevent the Rose Bowl from being reduced to the level of the Fiesta/Peach/Cotton/Sugar bowls. Once that egg is broken, humpty dumpty can't be put back together again.

Basically everything you said up until the last quote is what I’m saying and I agree with. I appreciate the response though.

BUT

Newsflash: that Rose Bowl egg has been broken since the BCS era! It’s been one concession after another and this is just another in the concession line. They can include a parade and fanfare and nostalgia and all that, but it’s NOT what it was and what made it special. The Cotton Bowl isn’t the same (RIP SWC), the Orange Bowl doesn’t include the Big 8 (RIP) champ, it’s going to be a cog in the playoff wheel. No more, no less.

(09-09-2022 04:24 PM)esayem Wrote:  Newsflash: that Rose Bowl egg has been broken since the BCS era! It’s been one concession after another and this is just another in the concession line. They can include a parade and fanfare and nostalgia and all that, but it’s NOT what it was and what made it special. The Cotton Bowl isn’t the same (RIP SWC), the Orange Bowl doesn’t include the Big 8 (RIP) champ, it’s going to be a cog in the playoff wheel. No more, no less.

The question is whether its like a light switch, on and off, or whether it's a continuum. I reckon it's a continuum, and getting the Big Ten champ back into the Rose Bowl slides it back the right way along that continuum.

(09-09-2022 09:59 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-09-2022 09:48 AM)jgkojak Wrote:  I don't know why you wouldn't make Round 1 3rd week of Dec
The final 8 New Years Day +/- Dec 31 or Jan 2

I also think they could do a thing where the losers of Round 1 (games between seeds 5 and 12) could go to late Dec bowl games

Yeah - I think we're getting way too hung up on the "2nd week of December" reference.

I'm not saying that it's *impossible* for the CCGs to move back a week, but pretty much every financial incentive of everyone that actually matters (e.g. the Big Ten and SEC) would push back against that happening. Plus, it makes even less sense if the idea to extend the championship game date all the way until late January or even the week before the Super Bowl (which would almost always be February). There's no point in condensing the front end of the playoffs if you're going to still stretch out the back end of the playoffs.

As fans, we generally want a condensed schedule, but we seem to be heading toward the exact opposite where the Powers That Be and TV networks may be looking to stretch this out to be a nearly 2-month-long event.

If Thanksgiving is on November 22 (the earliest date possible), the CCG would be on Saturday December 1 (or maybe Friday, November 30, the Pac 12 and CUSA play on Friday in 2022).

12 days later is Thursday December 13, which is the second Thursday in December. Friday the 14 is the second Friday in December.

The only official definition appears to be in conjunction with divorces and child custody cases. In Texas, the weekend is said to begin on Friday (after school). So in 2029, Bill who has custody of Billy on the second weekend of each month, will be able to take him to the first round playoff game at Enormous State Tech University.

He might even be able to take him to a Thursday game if his ex- went to a school that is hosting the QF. "Yes of course you can take Billy to the game. Steve (her new husband, who you loathe) and I can take him on his private jet to the Rose Bowl over New Years. We're (the school she and Steve graduated from) are #3. Too bad your team had "that muffed punt catch/ fumbled on the 1 yard line/gave up a 99-yard drive in the last minute/had an extra point partially blocked and hit the cross bar". Better luck next season."

How many of the 11 presidents have child custody arrangements, and would know instantly when looking at a December 2029 calendar that the games would be on the second weekend?