Two pieces of the playoff format are missing from what was nerfed this past Winter.

1) No mention of quarterfinals on New Years Day
2) The first-round is no longer fixed to the third weekend of December.
https://collegefootballplayoff.com/news/...ayoff.aspx

Are they leaving room for keeping semifinals on New Years Day? It would keep travel up for the semifinals. The top 4 champs could still anchor late-December quarterfinals, so that hotels are booked. "Rotation" language is still used, but perhaps there are 8 total bowl slots.

4 late December quarterfinals
2 New Years semifinals
2 New Years+ access bowls (teams outside the Top 12, think Rose in off-years)

I am confused. The following language was in the link you provided

6. Subject to reaching agreement with bowls, the four quarterfinal games and two Playoff Semifinal games would be played in bowls on a rotating basis.

7. The national championship game will continue to be played at a neutral site.

8. Subject to reaching agreement with bowls, the four highest-ranked conference champions will be assigned to quarterfinals bowls on selection day in ranking order, and in consideration of current contract bowl relationships if those bowls are selected for the rotation. For example, if the Pac-12 champion were ranked #1, the Big Ten champion were ranked #3, and the Rose Bowl were a quarterfinal site, the Pac-12 champion would be assigned to the Rose Bowl and the Big Ten champion would be assigned elsewhere.

9. With the four highest-ranked champions assigned to quarterfinal games in bowls, the opponent from first-round game winners will be assigned by the selection committee based on the bracket

That to me clearly spells out they intend for the quarterfinals to be in the bowls.

(09-05-2022 07:10 AM)goofus Wrote:  I am confused. The following language was in the link you provided

6. Subject to reaching agreement with bowls, the four quarterfinal games and two Playoff Semifinal games would be played in bowls on a rotating basis.

7. The national championship game will continue to be played at a neutral site.

8. Subject to reaching agreement with bowls, the four highest-ranked conference champions will be assigned to quarterfinals bowls on selection day in ranking order, and in consideration of current contract bowl relationships if those bowls are selected for the rotation. For example, if the Pac-12 champion were ranked #1, the Big Ten champion were ranked #3, and the Rose Bowl were a quarterfinal site, the Pac-12 champion would be assigned to the Rose Bowl and the Big Ten champion would be assigned elsewhere.

9. With the four highest-ranked champions assigned to quarterfinal games in bowls, the opponent from first-round game winners will be assigned by the selection committee based on the bracket

That to me clearly spells out they intend for the quarterfinals to be in the bowls.

Yep. But no mention that those bowls will be on New Years Day. That is the part that WAS stated last year but has been dropped this year. The first-round also WAS pinned to the third weekend of December, but now language opens it up to being on the second again.

Ok that's what was tripping me up. I was having a hard time imagining the quarterfinals being played in bowls in mid-December. Thanks for the clarification.

(09-05-2022 06:55 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Two pieces of the playoff format are missing from what was nerfed this past Winter.

1) No mention of quarterfinals on New Years Day
2) The first-round is no longer fixed to the third weekend of December.
https://collegefootballplayoff.com/news/...ayoff.aspx

Are they leaving room for keeping semifinals on New Years Day? It would keep travel up for the semifinals. The top 4 champs could still anchor late-December quarterfinals, so that hotels are booked. "Rotation" language is still used, but perhaps there are 8 total bowl slots.

4 late December quarterfinals
2 New Years semifinals
2 New Years+ access bowls (teams outside the Top 12, think Rose in off-years)

You're reading a LOT into a trivial change of language.
You basically can't play on the fourth weekend of December, that's now an NFL Saturday.
So you're suggesting
--the first round on the second Saturday in December (12 or so days after the CCGs, somehow)
--quarterfinal "bowls" on the third Saturday in December
--semifinals on New YEars Day.

If they were moving in that direction, I don't think they'd bother involving the bowls in the quarterfinals.

(09-05-2022 07:16 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(09-05-2022 07:10 AM)goofus Wrote:  I am confused. The following language was in the link you provided

6. Subject to reaching agreement with bowls, the four quarterfinal games and two Playoff Semifinal games would be played in bowls on a rotating basis.

7. The national championship game will continue to be played at a neutral site.

8. Subject to reaching agreement with bowls, the four highest-ranked conference champions will be assigned to quarterfinals bowls on selection day in ranking order, and in consideration of current contract bowl relationships if those bowls are selected for the rotation. For example, if the Pac-12 champion were ranked #1, the Big Ten champion were ranked #3, and the Rose Bowl were a quarterfinal site, the Pac-12 champion would be assigned to the Rose Bowl and the Big Ten champion would be assigned elsewhere.

9. With the four highest-ranked champions assigned to quarterfinal games in bowls, the opponent from first-round game winners will be assigned by the selection committee based on the bracket

That to me clearly spells out they intend for the quarterfinals to be in the bowls.

Yep. But no mention that those bowls will be on New Years Day. That is the part that WAS stated last year but has been dropped this year. The first-round also WAS pinned to the third weekend of December, but now language opens it up to being on the second again.

This is the kind of language that leaves open the possibility of moving 4 Bowls, the Cotton/Peach/Fiesta and maybe Citrus/Gator/Orange back to the third weekend of December. There won't be a bye week for Army/Navy and Heisman in that case, but I believe they mentioned the first round taking place after Army/Navy, which would nullify the hypothesis. I'm not holding out hope of SF getting fixed on NYD.

Although I agree there would be issues with moving the quarterfinals bowls up to the 3rd weekend in December, I would push back on the idea that the NFL owns any Saturdays in December.

My understanding is the NFL does not play on Fridays and Saturdays to avoid conflicts high school and college football. The main reason they do this is to avoid an anti-trust lawsuit. Of course this all gets a little murky during bowl season. And now it's getting even murkier with NIL. I am not sure either side would want to challenge the statas quo because it could open up a can of worms. If college football challenges the NFL, it could potentially open up ALL Saturdays to the NFL. If the NFL challenges, the NFL could be declared a monopoly and broken up.

(09-05-2022 07:48 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(09-05-2022 07:16 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(09-05-2022 07:10 AM)goofus Wrote:  I am confused. The following language was in the link you provided

6. Subject to reaching agreement with bowls, the four quarterfinal games and two Playoff Semifinal games would be played in bowls on a rotating basis.

7. The national championship game will continue to be played at a neutral site.

8. Subject to reaching agreement with bowls, the four highest-ranked conference champions will be assigned to quarterfinals bowls on selection day in ranking order, and in consideration of current contract bowl relationships if those bowls are selected for the rotation. For example, if the Pac-12 champion were ranked #1, the Big Ten champion were ranked #3, and the Rose Bowl were a quarterfinal site, the Pac-12 champion would be assigned to the Rose Bowl and the Big Ten champion would be assigned elsewhere.

9. With the four highest-ranked champions assigned to quarterfinal games in bowls, the opponent from first-round game winners will be assigned by the selection committee based on the bracket

That to me clearly spells out they intend for the quarterfinals to be in the bowls.

Yep. But no mention that those bowls will be on New Years Day. That is the part that WAS stated last year but has been dropped this year. The first-round also WAS pinned to the third weekend of December, but now language opens it up to being on the second again.

This is the kind of language that leaves open the possibility of moving 4 Bowls, the Cotton/Peach/Fiesta and maybe Citrus/Gator/Orange back to the third weekend of December. There won't be a bye week for Army/Navy and Heisman in that case, but I believe they mentioned the first round taking place after Army/Navy, which would nullify the hypothesis. I'm not holding out hope of SF getting fixed on NYD.

I just wish they'd make the first round also at bowl sites.

Holiday, Alamo, Music City, Gator

Then you can sell tickets to the general public for it all year to make up for the fact that its a first round game with non-blueblood programs involved. Also increases the probability of winning for the underdogs at a neutral site.

(09-05-2022 07:48 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(09-05-2022 07:16 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(09-05-2022 07:10 AM)goofus Wrote:  I am confused. The following language was in the link you provided

6. Subject to reaching agreement with bowls, the four quarterfinal games and two Playoff Semifinal games would be played in bowls on a rotating basis.

7. The national championship game will continue to be played at a neutral site.

8. Subject to reaching agreement with bowls, the four highest-ranked conference champions will be assigned to quarterfinals bowls on selection day in ranking order, and in consideration of current contract bowl relationships if those bowls are selected for the rotation. For example, if the Pac-12 champion were ranked #1, the Big Ten champion were ranked #3, and the Rose Bowl were a quarterfinal site, the Pac-12 champion would be assigned to the Rose Bowl and the Big Ten champion would be assigned elsewhere.

9. With the four highest-ranked champions assigned to quarterfinal games in bowls, the opponent from first-round game winners will be assigned by the selection committee based on the bracket

That to me clearly spells out they intend for the quarterfinals to be in the bowls.

Yep. But no mention that those bowls will be on New Years Day. That is the part that WAS stated last year but has been dropped this year. The first-round also WAS pinned to the third weekend of December, but now language opens it up to being on the second again.

This is the kind of language that leaves open the possibility of moving 4 Bowls, the Cotton/Peach/Fiesta and maybe Citrus/Gator/Orange back to the third weekend of December. There won't be a bye week for Army/Navy and Heisman in that case, but I believe they mentioned the first round taking place after Army/Navy, which would nullify the hypothesis. I'm not holding out hope of SF getting fixed on NYD.

I don't think that's happening.

1. Easiest point first: Army-Navy game is not mentioned in the CFP release. They don't care. Not their circus, not their monkeys.
2. You're generally making this unduly complicated to fit what you (maybe both of us) think it should be. They picked up the proposal from last year and they're moving forward with it. Plan A is 3 quarterfinal bowls on New Years Day (4th QF close as they can get), with the 6 major bowls rotating QFs and semis. Plan B only comes into play if the bowls are feeling froggy and think they have more leverage than they do.
3. They're just not worried at all about semifinals on Thursday and Friday nights on TV, about filling the stadiums for the semifinals. They don't care that the NCG could be on Monday January 26 once in a while.

4. Not as well established: This is a very ESPN-friendly format, geared to fill windows ESPN would like filled with high-audience games. ESPN is the CFP television partner, so they can communicate freely without limits. I suspect that the OTA networks might have made an alternate case for a more December-centered, Saturday-centered playoff with fewer games reaching larger audiences, but they weren't in the room and probably won't be. (Even if the contract does go to market, it goes to market in this format which the TV networks will be invited to bid on.

I think Fox (NBC, CBS) would have been favorable to a format with 2 first round games (5 vs 8, 6 vs 7) the second Saturday, 2 second round games on the Third Saturday, Rose and Sugar as semifinals, National Championship Game at 1:00 to kick off NFL Wild Card Weekend. But that's not on the table.

I think too many people are getting hung up on the 2nd/3rd Saturday in December reference and not looking at the much clearer and specific other parameter for the first round of the playoff: it needs to be at least 12 days after the conference championship games are played.

Practically speaking, that means there needs to be at least one weekend off between the CCGs and the first round, which allows for the Army-Navy Game to continue with its own scheduled dedicated day as-is no matter what.

This also means that unless the entire college football season is moved back a week where the CCGs are on Thanksgiving weekend, the first round needs to be played on the third Saturday of December. Under the current calendar, the earliest possible CCG Saturday date is December 1 (as the earliest possible Thanksgiving date in any given year is November 22, which would have December 1 be the next following Saturday). That would still put the second Saturday in December only one week after the CCGs, so that doesn’t meet the 12 days minimum rest requirement.

Once again, practically speaking, the Big Ten and SEC (the most important players in the room) both just signed massive TV deals that provide for Black Friday games and additional premiums for their most valuable Thanksgiving rivalry week games like Michigan-Ohio State and Alabama-Auburn. They’re not supporting any change to that calendar.

TLDR: the presidents just took the CFP committee proposal verbatim and people are trying to find holes/openings that don’t actually exist in practicality.

CFP Press Release Wrote:The model allows for first-round games to be played on either the second or third weekend in December in a way that best accommodates the format and the participating teams, with at least 12 days between the conference championship games and the first-round games. The Management Committee would make the final determination of the calendar.

These two items seem at odds. Is this saying some games will be played on each weekend, depending on the "participating teams"?

Maybe: Top 2 teams not in a CCG get home games Army-Navy weekend (12 days lead time) while the other two first round games are played the "third" weekend (12 days after CCGs). ???

CFP Press Release Wrote:Subject to reaching agreement with bowls, the four quarterfinal games and two Playoff Semifinal games would be played in bowls on a rotating basis.

CFP Press Release Wrote:Subject to reaching agreement with bowls, the four highest-ranked conference champions will be assigned to quarterfinals bowls on selection day in ranking order

Sounds like the next step is talking to the bowls. Do the bowls want to rotate into mid-January semis or mid-December quarters, to go along with their NYD games? I guess the latter, maximizing the number of NYD playoff games. Though maybe the Rose can convince the CFP to allow them to double-host when their playoff game is 'off' NYD.

(09-05-2022 04:25 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

CFP Press Release Wrote:The model allows for first-round games to be played on either the second or third weekend in December in a way that best accommodates the format and the participating teams, with at least 12 days between the conference championship games and the first-round games. The Management Committee would make the final determination of the calendar.

These two items seem at odds. Is this saying some games will be played on each weekend, depending on the "participating teams"?

Maybe: Top 2 teams not in a CCG get home games Army-Navy weekend (12 days lead time) while the other two first round games are played the "third" weekend (12 days after CCGs). ???

CFP Press Release Wrote:Subject to reaching agreement with bowls, the four quarterfinal games and two Playoff Semifinal games would be played in bowls on a rotating basis.

CFP Press Release Wrote:Subject to reaching agreement with bowls, the four highest-ranked conference champions will be assigned to quarterfinals bowls on selection day in ranking order

Sounds like the next step is talking to the bowls. Do the bowls want to rotate into mid-January semis or mid-December quarters, to go along with their NYD games? I guess the latter, maximizing the number of NYD playoff games. Though maybe the Rose can convince the CFP to allow them to double-host when their playoff game is 'off' NYD.

I’m not sure where you’re seeing anything is at odds here?

You’re searching for complexity that doesn’t exist. The CFP first round is ALL happening at least 12 days after the CCGs (not 12 days after the last games for the participants because the CFP can’t and shouldn’t control for that if it actually applies real seedings).

The NYD bowls almost certainly want the quarterfinals. The Big Ten in particular would be getting the Rose Bowl berth most seasons if the Rose is a quarterfinal.

All I’m seeing from the presidents here is keeping the status quo calendar and adding to it as opposed to chucking the whole status quo calendar.

Well, the Rose has a deal through Jan 1st 26th. Their last 4-team playoff game is Jan 24' so there should be a window to get the expansion done by Fall 24' (earliest projected year). However, ESPN/RB are locked into B1G vs PAC through Jan 1st 25' and 26'. That's not something they are going to throw out to become a permanent QF for God knows how long.

It is in ESPNs best interest (and certainly Pasadena folks) to keep the PAC relevant for those last two years and push the 12 team playoff to Fall 26'... unless ESPN is getting more playoff games on the cheap, which is unlikely. Otherwise, your RB could be B1G vs G5 or B1G vs nBig 12, which isn't as good as opponents like Oregon and Utah.

What does a QF RB look like in a 20-team B1G (assuming PN4 without ND)? Is locking in Oregon or Washington as a potential rep worth it, while losing 6/10 schools (those not getting into the B1G). You already have USC locked in, but do they need to lock in brands like UW Oregon Stanford? My guess is no. Keep the PAC at 10 (with potential G5 expansion). Sign the PAC10 to a similar length deal to the B1G with a GoR.

On the other hand, ESPN has rights to the Sugar Bowl and a contract with the Big 12. Theoretically, Yormark could say, "the hell with finishing as a top 4 conference champion" (something they'd still have to earn over the ACC/PAC 12 and AAC/MWC for that matter). "We are owed a game between the next best SEC team for 25' and 26'."

Is Yormark so confident his schools would host a QF game every year at a NY6 and voluntarily give up a Bowl Game like Baylor vs Ole Miss? Probably, but it's going to take money aside from the regular season package.

There could be incentive to strengthen the Big 12s position and eliminate the PAC 12 as a result of the Sugar Bowl contract, which is more of an impediment to 12-team playoff in 24' than the RB is currently.

To be clear, I am not suggesting QF games are worse than non-playoff NY6 games. Those QF games are way more valuable... however, it is cost prohibitive when ESPN finds itself in a bidding war for them with other TV partners.

Final note.... imagine the incentive for a Big 16, B1G 20, ACC 14 and SEC in terms of locking into those 4 NYD QF Bowls and getting champs an almost automatic bye. Very difficult for the AAC and MWC to overcome that.

(09-05-2022 06:51 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Well, the Rose has a deal through Jan 1st 26th. Their last 4-team playoff game is Jan 24' so there should be a window to get the expansion done by Fall 24' (earliest projected year). However, ESPN/RB are locked into B1G vs PAC through Jan 1st 25' and 26'. That's not something they are going to throw out to become a permanent QF for God knows how long.

It is in ESPNs best interest (and certainly Pasadena folks) to keep the PAC relevant for those last two years and push the 12 team playoff to Fall 26'... unless ESPN is getting more playoff games on the cheap, which is unlikely. Otherwise, your RB could be B1G vs G5 or B1G vs nBig 12, which isn't as good as opponents like Oregon and Utah.

What does a QF RB look like in a 20-team B1G (assuming PN4 without ND)? Is locking in Oregon or Washington as a potential rep worth it while losing 6/10 schools (those not getting into the B1G). You already have USC locked in, but do they need to lock in brands like UW Oregon Stanford? My guess is no. Keep the PAC at 10 (with potential G5 expansion). Sign the PAC10 to a similar length deal to the B1G with a GoR.

On the other hand, ESPN has rights to the Sugar Bowl and a contract with the Big 12. Theoretically, Yormark could say, "the hell with finishing as a top 4 conference champion" (something they'd still have to earn over ACC/PAC 12 and AAC/MWC for that matter). "We are owed a game between the next best SEC team for 25' and 26'."

Is Yormark so confident his schools would host a QF game every year at a NY6 and voluntarily give up a Bowl Game like Baylor vs Ole Miss? Probably, but it's going to take money aside from the regular season package.

Their could be incentive to strengthen the Big 12s position and eliminate the PAC 12 as a result of the Sugar Bowl contract, which is more of an impediment to 12-team playoff in 24' than the RB is currently.

To be clear, I am not suggesting QF games are worse than non-playoff NY6 games. Those QF games are way more valuable... however, it is cost prohibitive when ESPN finds itself in a bidding war for them with other TV partners.

What’s different now is that the Big Ten truly alone controls the fate of the Rose Bowl. It’s no longer a 50/50 partnership with the Pac-12 after USC/UCLA left. Personally, I think the Big Ten wants to keep the tradition of the Rose Bowl in late afternoon on NYD with a B1G playing in it as much as possible with it being a playoff game. This is now a game being played in a Big Ten stadium in a Big Ten market with the Big Ten having outsized power over college sports along with the SEC. Whatever the Big Ten wants to do with the Rose Bowl, it will be done. I don’t see the Rose Bowl contract being an impediment to the playoff being implemented earlier as long as the Big Ten wants it changed. The Pac-12 will be happy just to survive to 2026.

It’s similar with the Big 12. They can huff and puff all that they want, but the reality is that they need the expanded playoff to happen sooner much more than their Sugar Bowl partner of the SEC.

If anything, the Pac-12 and Big 12 have super incentives to have the playoff start sooner because they can price that into their new TV packages where they are much more likely to have a lot more playoff-relevant games in a 12-team CFP than the current 4-team CFP (particularly after the USC/UCLA and UT/OU moves officially happen).

(09-05-2022 06:51 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Well, the Rose has a deal through Jan 1st 26th. Their last 4-team playoff game is Jan 24' so there should be a window to get the expansion done by Fall 24' (earliest projected year). However, ESPN/RB are locked into B1G vs PAC through Jan 1st 25' and 26'. That's not something they are going to throw out to become a permanent QF for God knows how long.

Yes it is. Big Ten vs PAC Rose Bowl is dead.
Everyone wants the new system. The PAC or the Rose Bowl isn't going to stand in the way over 2 Rose Bowls with the PAC.

Quote:It is in ESPNs best interest (and certainly Pasadena folks) to keep the PAC relevant for those last two years and push the 12 team playoff to Fall 26'...

??? The Big Ten keeps Pasadena relevant. ESPN isn't married to the PAC, even if they sign them.

Quote: unless ESPN is getting more playoff games on the cheap, which is unlikely.

If there's early playoff expansion, it's because ESPN gets the expanded playoff not just for two years). If ESPN gets the new playoff, they'll set the rest aside (from ESPN's POV anyway.)

Quote:therwise, your RB could be B1G vs G5 or B1G vs nBig 12, which isn't as good as opponents like Oregon and Utah.

Not a big deal, really. The Rose will be Big Ten vs whoever the committee matches them with based on seeding (wink).

Quote:On the other hand, ESPN has rights to the Sugar Bowl and a contract with the Big 12. Theoretically, Yormark could say, "the hell with finishing as a top 4 conference champion" (something they'd still have to earn over ACC/PAC 12 and AAC/MWC for that matter). "We are owed a game between the next best SEC team for 25' and 26'."

It's over. If they can get it worked out, the Big 12 isn't going to stand in the way of everybody getting more money. if Yormark suggests that, he'll be fired.

Quote:Is Yormark so confident his schools would host a QF game every year at a NY6 and voluntarily give up a Bowl Game like Baylor vs Ole Miss? Probably, but it's going to take money aside from the regular season package.

Yes, the Big 12's share of the increased playoff money.

Quote:There could be incentive to strengthen the Big 12s position and eliminate the PAC 12 as a result of the Sugar Bowl contract, which is more of an impediment to 12-team playoff in 24' than the RB is currently.

No, everyone will just move on to their new tie-ins in 2024, if they can work it out.

Quote:To be clear, I am not suggesting QF games are worse than non-playoff NY6 games. Those QF games are way more valuable... however, it is cost prohibitive when ESPN finds itself in a bidding war for them with other TV partners.

If there is early expansion, then there is no bidding war.

(09-05-2022 07:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  What’s different now is that the Big Ten truly alone controls the fate of the Rose Bowl. It’s no longer a 50/50 partnership with the Pac-12 after USC/UCLA left. Personally, I think the Big Ten wants to keep the tradition of the Rose Bowl in late afternoon on NYD with a B1G playing in it as much as possible with it being a playoff game. This is now a game being played in a Big Ten stadium in a Big Ten market with the Big Ten having outsized power over college sports along with the SEC. Whatever the Big Ten wants to do with the Rose Bowl, it will be done. I don’t see the Rose Bowl contract being an impediment to the playoff being implemented earlier as long as the Big Ten wants it changed. The Pac-12 will be happy just to survive to 2026.

It’s similar with the Big 12. They can huff and puff all that they want, but the reality is that they need the expanded playoff to happen sooner much more than their Sugar Bowl partner of the SEC.

If anything, the Pac-12 and Big 12 have super incentives to have the playoff start sooner because they can price that into their new TV packages where they are much more likely to have a lot more playoff-relevant games in a 12-team CFP than the current 4-team CFP (particularly after the USC/UCLA and UT/OU moves officially happen).

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.

Likewise, the nBig 12 loses that representation in the Sugar both those years as well. They have to earn a spot into another QF Bowl. I don't think the AQ bid is that relevant if they can't secure that bye (or winnable campus game in the first round).

(09-05-2022 07:26 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(09-05-2022 07:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  What’s different now is that the Big Ten truly alone controls the fate of the Rose Bowl. It’s no longer a 50/50 partnership with the Pac-12 after USC/UCLA left. Personally, I think the Big Ten wants to keep the tradition of the Rose Bowl in late afternoon on NYD with a B1G playing in it as much as possible with it being a playoff game. This is now a game being played in a Big Ten stadium in a Big Ten market with the Big Ten having outsized power over college sports along with the SEC. Whatever the Big Ten wants to do with the Rose Bowl, it will be done. I don’t see the Rose Bowl contract being an impediment to the playoff being implemented earlier as long as the Big Ten wants it changed. The Pac-12 will be happy just to survive to 2026.

It’s similar with the Big 12. They can huff and puff all that they want, but the reality is that they need the expanded playoff to happen sooner much more than their Sugar Bowl partner of the SEC.

If anything, the Pac-12 and Big 12 have super incentives to have the playoff start sooner because they can price that into their new TV packages where they are much more likely to have a lot more playoff-relevant games in a 12-team CFP than the current 4-team CFP (particularly after the USC/UCLA and UT/OU moves officially happen).

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.

Their compensation is their big fat playoff checks.

Quote:'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.

That is true. You won't see a PAC team in a Rise Bowl Any more often than a Big 12 team. Get over it.

But that's happening in 2026 no matter what happens in 2024, 2025. For 2024, 2025 the expanded CFp money is going to be much more than the Rose Bowl money the PAC loses.

Quote:Likewise, the nBig 12 loses that representation in the Sugar both those years as well. They have to earn a spot into another QF Bowl. I don't think the AQ bid is that relevant they can't secure that bye (or winnable campus game in the first round).

Again, the Big 12 only has the Sugar Bowl contract for two more years. They're not giving up the playoff expansion money to keep the Big 12 in 2 Sugar Bowls.

(09-05-2022 07:26 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(09-05-2022 07:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  What’s different now is that the Big Ten truly alone controls the fate of the Rose Bowl. It’s no longer a 50/50 partnership with the Pac-12 after USC/UCLA left. Personally, I think the Big Ten wants to keep the tradition of the Rose Bowl in late afternoon on NYD with a B1G playing in it as much as possible with it being a playoff game. This is now a game being played in a Big Ten stadium in a Big Ten market with the Big Ten having outsized power over college sports along with the SEC. Whatever the Big Ten wants to do with the Rose Bowl, it will be done. I don’t see the Rose Bowl contract being an impediment to the playoff being implemented earlier as long as the Big Ten wants it changed. The Pac-12 will be happy just to survive to 2026.

It’s similar with the Big 12. They can huff and puff all that they want, but the reality is that they need the expanded playoff to happen sooner much more than their Sugar Bowl partner of the SEC.

If anything, the Pac-12 and Big 12 have super incentives to have the playoff start sooner because they can price that into their new TV packages where they are much more likely to have a lot more playoff-relevant games in a 12-team CFP than the current 4-team CFP (particularly after the USC/UCLA and UT/OU moves officially happen).

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.

Likewise, the nBig 12 loses that representation in the Sugar both those years as well. They have to earn a spot into another QF Bowl. I don't think the AQ bid is that relevant if they can't secure that bye (or winnable campus game in the first round).

To the extent that you’re saying that these are unresolved details, I agree with you.

All of the P5 leagues will be seeking compensation for giving up any guaranteed revenue from the Contract Bowls that they would have received in 2025 and 2026. Considering that every single one of these leagues just voted for this playoff system that assumes that the bowls are hosting the quarterfinals and semifinals, I think it’s likely more of ensuring that the P5 are getting just compensation for the “loss” of the Contract Bowls more than insisting upon actually playing in non-playoff Contract Bowls. In fact, that will be a “reasonable” justification for the P5 to get more revenue than the G5 (as the additional revenue is for compensating the elimination of Contract Bowl revenue).

(09-05-2022 06:55 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Two pieces of the playoff format are missing from what was nerfed this past Winter.

1) No mention of quarterfinals on New Years Day
2) The first-round is no longer fixed to the third weekend of December.
https://collegefootballplayoff.com/news/...ayoff.aspx

Are they leaving room for keeping semifinals on New Years Day?...

Loosening up the language on the timing is compatible with multiple things, though, so it is not a specific indication of any one of the things it is compatible with.

It is, for instance, also compatible with discussion after the original playoff structure was proposed revealing that they hadn't completely taken into account the various ways the schedule would have to be adjusted for the different days of the week that New Year's Day falls on, and what that implies for the calendar.

It is also compatible with an interest in having the bowls that wish to be on NYD ... we know from the Rose Bowl's summary of what they would want from an expanded playoff that the Rose Bowl would like to remain on NYD ... have to win that as part of the negotiations, so that those who are able to pay the most for the privilege are those that are guaranteed the prime broadcast spot.

Johnny, you make a good point about the bidding war. I suppose ESPN will be negotiating exclusively in 24' and 25' if we are to get early expansion. I still don't think I've read that explicitly, just that an agreement with the Bowls has to be reached (within the existing frameworks). That is 99% the correct assumption, but early expansion is 100% dependent on reaching a deal with ESPN and its Bowls.

My question, and it's a separate one, is if we do get into a bidding war because ESpin lowballs (big surprise that would be...), there is strong incentive to destroy the PAC10 and move to 4 "super" conferences to ensure the tier 1 schools get the bye. That would be very important to the Presidents. But it perhaps dilutes the playoff field a bit in a 6+6. That's a separate topic.