bullet
Legend
Posts: 66,668
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3300
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location: |
RE: Jim Delany: SEC, ACC snub could spur playoff change
(12-19-2019 10:19 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: (12-19-2019 12:33 AM)JRsec Wrote: Delany's comments were merely a troll of the Network which hampered his plans for a totally self owned an independent BTN by refusing to seek carriage for rights that didn't belong to them, even though they then held T1 & T2 rights for the Big 10 and still do.
He was trolling ESPN because of how they tried to scoop up Big East schools out of the assumption that Delany might expand with them to get his independent BTN into New England.
And he was trolling ESPN for almost scooping Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas out from under FOX's noses in an effort of keeping FOX and the Big 10 from moving Southward into recruiting hotbeds.
The SEC is a majority ESPN product and the ACC is 100% owned by ESPN, and the CFP and bowl structure belongs to ESPN.
So Delaney was essentially saying, "When Hell Freezes Over and the SEC and ACC miss the playoffs Then We Might Have an Excuse to go to 8 Schools."
I see this as a thumbing of the nose at Mickey Mouse and essentially getting a dig in at their control, their ownership of the rights, media means, and their endorsement of the CFP committee to a championship which so far has only been missed by non majority ESPN conferences.
And it is a dig at Sankey who is on record as saying "No" to expanding the playoffs.
I don't see any of this as being a serous observation as much as it is a vehicle designed to convey a Sicilian message to a company that he had to do business with, but really didn't respect.
Eh - I wouldn't say that this is a Big Ten/ESPN thing considering that ESPN is still paying his league $200 million-plus per year along with the Rose Bowl contract. Similar to the NFL, the Big Ten is going to take every opportunity to maximize its leverage in the media marketplace and always make sure that there's someone on the outside that's going to create a bidding war for TV rights. That's quite different than having some type of personal emotional vendetta against ESPN. To be sure, I see it as a Sicilian message, too, but in a different way. As the Corleone family would say, it's not personal, but strictly business.
Separately, it's unlikely that the SEC will miss the playoff, but as I've noted elsewhere, unpredictable things happen all of the time in sports (which is the entire reason why we watch sports in the first place). I certainly wouldn't say it would take hell freezing over for the ACC to miss the playoff. In fact, all that it would take is Clemson having a single bad day. Even coaches and programs where the usual standard is perfection (such as Nick Saban and Alabama) have bad days from time to time.
So, I really do think that the support for an 8-team playoff is growing. People that matter (such as conference commissioners as opposed to fans) are seeing that the "eye test" bias is real having now seen the CFP system in practice over several years. Sure, the sense of urgency is going to be greater for a conference that's locked out as opposed to one that's included... but note that the Big Ten argued against changing the BCS system for many years even though it actually performed the worst out of all of the power conferences from the perspective of making it to the national title game.
I think what has changed is that a conference getting left out of today's CFP system carries a much different stigma despite the fact that it's always a *team* that makes it to the playoff as opposed to a *conference*. The ACC isn't a better football conference than the Pac-12, but it does have a better top *team* with Clemson. So, the perception is the ACC is successful in today's CFP system, but the reality is that *Clemson* is successful in today's CFP system and the ACC is fortunate to come along for the ride. The SEC might feel safe regardless of the playoff format, but the ACC certainly shouldn't (as not that long ago they were regularly sending some of the weakest teams to the BCS system and as evidenced by where their runner-up UVA is ranked this year). Eventually, at least 4 of the P5 are going to have been shut out of the CFP and that's going to have an impact.
Frankly, I don't see why the SEC would object outside of just publicly creating more leverage for itself to ensure that it maximizes revenue (which is probably the real reason for Stankey's comments). Similarly, Big Ten and Pac-12 publicly fought the CFP even though they knew that system was eventually going to come to pass. Ultimately, all of those public objections were really about maximizing their own revenue and protecting the Rose Bowl relationship in that playoff system. I'd expect the same from the SEC in an 8-team playoff proposal - they'll publicly "object" in order to create leverage to obtain the concessions that they really want (whether it's guaranteed money or making sure that their champ always goes to New Orleans or some other friendly de facto home field side, etc.).
The Iowa and eyeball test comment were also significant. At this point any P5 school not named USC, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio St., Michigan, Notre Dame, Clemson, Florida St., Florida, Georgia, LSU or Alabama has to be concerned. The way things are going a 12-1 B1G champ Iowa will get left out in favor of a 12-1 Alabama who lost in the SEC ccg or an 11-1 Alabama who lost to unbeaten LSU, let alone the situations where a 3rd ranked co champ 11-1 TCU gets dropped 3 spots behind a 12-1 Ohio St. or an 11-2 Big 10 champ Penn St. gets dropped behind an 11-1 Ohio St. team they beat.
|
|
/
Jim Delany: SEC, ACC snub could spur playoff change
