(11-29-2022 01:12 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 01:05 PM)esayem Wrote:  Semis on NYD suck for several reasons:

• Delegitimizes current "NY6" bowls by forcing 4/6 each season to play A) quarterfinals around Christmas (horrible for attendance) or B) meaningless consolation games around NYD while campus hosts quarterfinals.

• Minimizes the television impact of a day college football currently owns, one which people will travel for. New Year's Day should have as many important college football games as possible. This means maximize playoff games, and quarterfinals does that better than any other option.

My thoughts:

Why not maximize the current NY6 and play the quarters on NYD, while allowing the Rose Bowl to contract their own meaningless consolation game 1/3 years at whatever time they want on NYD? They'd have to go head-to-head with a playoff game. Good luck, but their choice.

IMO, the easiest solution is to give the Rose Bowl a permanent quarterfinal, but perhaps bowls rotating and hosting semis isn't on the table so allowing Rosey to stay in the permanent rotation is being fought by the other bowls.

No one wants the Rose Bowl to go head-to-head with a playoff game - not the Rose Bowl, not the CFP, and *definitely* not the TV networks. ESPN (or FOX or whoever else) isn't paying a gazillion dollars for playoff games in order to have *any* halfway viable sports competition (hence the consternation with avoiding any time slots that compete with the NFL). So, that's why despite all of the tough talk from people like SI's sources, the CFP leaders realistically *have* to play ball with the Rose Bowl even if they might personally despise them.

Obviously the Rose Bowl is acting like they will go head-to-head if their demands aren't met. I mean, what am I missing here?

Viable? The Rose Bowl would be on the losing end of this, with just viewership from a marginal Big Ten team's fanbase and a gutted Pac 10's marginal team. I don't see why anyone has to play ball with this garbage. Include each bowl for a 2/3 year deal and let them fend for their own the other year. Bid out the Final 4.

(11-29-2022 01:12 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Now, I agree with that the easiest solution is to give the Rose Bowl a permanent quarterfinal. As I've stated before, I'm not sure why anyone cares about what the Peach Bowl or Cotton Bowl thinks post-2026. The optimal revenue maximizing solution for everyone is to fully integrate the Rose Bowl specifically into the playoffs. We shouldn't have to pretend that any other bowl matters outside of the Rose Bowl post-2026.

Jerry Jones is pretty powerful, like him or not. That's why the Cotton Bowl rose from the dead and is where it is. Peach Bowl? Atlanta is an easy city to get to even if that stadium has the personality of a museum restroom.

(11-29-2022 12:58 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  My interpretation of the Rose Bowl proposal isn't to reverse what the presidents agreed to in September (which applies to 2024 and 2025),

Revisionist history. The September letter was about 2026 and beyond. Then early expansion came on the radar.

Above-the-dateline subhead:
Format to Begin for the 2026 Regular Season, Unless Earlier Implementation is Possible

https://collegefootballplayoff.com/news/...ayoff.aspx

Quote:but rather what the Rose Bowl would want if the college football calendar changes to have the semifinals (as opposed to quarterfinals) on NYD in 2026. To me, that seems to be driven by momentum (totally outside of the Rose Bowl) to shift the college football calendar (or at least have the first two rounds of playoffs played in December).

Let's take another look at the two key paragraphs

While working around deadlines set by CFP officials, the Rose Bowl at first requested to retain its exclusive Jan. 1 window in future playoffs, something at which CFP executives balked. In the expanded playoff format approved by presidents Sept. 2, the six bowls would host the quarterfinals and semifinals in a rotation. The Rose Bowl wanted to hold a non-CFP game when its playoff game did not fall on New Year’s Day, pitting teams from the Pac-12 and Big Ten against each other in an exclusive window at its traditional date and time.

According to sources, the Rose Bowl’s latest proposal relinquishes an exclusive window but in exchange wants to host a semifinal on New Year’s Day in two years of its three-year rotation—a demand met with a visceral reaction from fellow bowl officials as well as many CFP presidents and commissioners.

It really seems like the second paragraph is a counter-offer after the Rose Bowl's first-paragraph proposal was rejected.

(11-28-2022 11:21 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-28-2022 10:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-28-2022 10:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-28-2022 10:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-28-2022 06:53 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  1. LOL

2. RIP

3. Good riddance

Wonder what the Rose Bowl cultists think? I've seen of a few pop up on other boards who wholeheartedly believe the folks in Pasadena still hold significant long-term power — even as the Pac-12 teeters on disintegration.

Meanwhile, the B1G has proven it will push aside tradition if a more economically enriching path presents itself.

Tick, tick, tick ...

All this means Pete is that the Big 10 has to decide if it wants its own Playoff centered around the Rose Bowl, or wants to be part of everyone else's playoff.

I say this because the SEC / Disney isn't going to let the tail wag the dog, no matter how much some Big 10 guys shout "Tradition" like they are in a production of Fiddler on the Roof! They are going to discover that Pasadena could become a lot like Anatevka.

What the Rose Bowl is pushing for is a Big 10 decision, not a P5 decision. But whatever that decision is it will not be the final one, unless the Big 10 decides the Rose Bowl can take seat and a number like everyone else.

The SEC obviously has its own ideas, but rest assured that Disney *loves* the Rose Bowl. Even when the BCS bowls were on Fox (remember those days?), the Rose Bowl still had a separate contact with Disney/ABC. It’s a perfect encapsulation of Disney corporate synergy: holiday Disneyland/Rose Bowl combo vacation packages sold to tourists, the Rose Parade on ABC in the morning (promoting Disney movies, parks and TV shows all the way through) and leading into the Rose Bowl in the afternoon where top Disney executives (all of whom live in LA) entertain all of their Hollywood business partners in premium seats. That doesn’t happen in a dome in Atlanta or Dallas.

Good to see in many of your posts that you expect more realignment. I remember when you said it was over and called any talk of it "realignment junkie" stuff. Disney is separating from all things Big 10 now, like that network backed basketball challenge. I wouldn't hold my breath on the Rose Bowl. Disney makes the most on a bowl when they earn revenue from the teams and the event. I doubt the "grandaddy of them all" is still a shiny new plaything about now.

Outside of that I've read all of your travel brochures. No matter how you cut it, the Rose Bowl doesn't pay any more than any other NY6 Bowl utilized by the CFP. That extra money it generates locally doesn't go into our pockets. So, we'll look after our interests, and you can look after the Big 10's.

This thing has been going sideways now for months, and the hang up is always up North somewhere, or in this case in a bowl you like to call home. I applaud you for sticking to the party line. I grasp your position. But what you have yet to grasp is that most in the South don't care if we ever play you, especially if it means we always have to compromise. 22 titles to Southern schools in 25 years time means that the national championship runs through the South, not Pasadena. Performance has bypassed your tradition.

Michigan is in. Let's see if they put up more of a fight this time. I hope they get TCU first and Georgia gets USC. Because that way maybe we will have a much better championship.

To be sure, I haven’t changed my position on realignment. I’ve always acknowledged that the Big Ten could expand more (and frankly personally believe that it *should* expand more), but my pushback continues to be about the timing and the fan-based wish that this needs to be happen NOW. They’re just not expanding without a clear per school revenue increase and that doesn’t appear to be happening during the term of the deals they just signed. Similarly, it’s a whole different ballgame arguing that the SEC is taking ACC schools next year versus taking ACC schools when the GOR expires in 2036.

I agree with you that Disney is just looking out for its bottom line. Where I think you’re going a little too far on is thinking that their dealings with the SEC are anything *but* about the bottom line (and I’d say the same about the Big Ten and its own TV partners). Disney just fired their CEO and re-hired their old one largely because they incurred $1.6 billion in losses in streaming in the last *quarter*. Assuming that Disney (or Fox or Amazon or anyone) is going to be an endless reservoir of TV rights fees carries a lot of risk in this environment where Wall Street has completely turned against high programming costs over the past few months (and I say that as someone that is still more bullish about rights fees for premium sports properties than most people).

This loops back into realignment because pretty much every near-term Armageddon-type realignment scenario that isn’t based on the Big Ten/Pac-12 is going to require Disney to pay more for ACC properties that they already 100% own until 2036 and I don’t see how anything that the company is going through points to *any* appetite for that to occur.

At the risk of dragging us a bit off topic, I'll say that Wall Street's current attitude is 100% due to the recession. Once the economy starts rolling again, likely within the next 6-9 months, it will be back to business as usual. It's been so long since we've had a real recession that it's easy to forget what happens to speculative endeavors during a recession. Disney's board knew this. Iger's return was more about Chapek's many missteps over the past couple of years.

(11-29-2022 12:15 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 08:25 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-28-2022 11:15 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(11-28-2022 10:09 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-28-2022 09:39 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  The calendar change is a move forced by the NFL... where have Presidents come out in public in favor of week 0 summer football? It seems disastrous on every level... What are the advantages outside of freeing up an extra weekend? Player safety, weather, and the lack of students on campus has to factor in, unless they are starting some European and Canadien series, but that won't be relevant to all of FBS.

Something is amiss here... even the scenario of a 1pm 8pm SF on NYD... it just makes no sense. CFB does not need a 4 hour filler before the next SF game which typically doesn't kickoff until after 8:30 pm ET. What other major American sport sandwiches their playoff games like that?

Please see this article (linked in the OP article) from a couple of months ago that was discussed quite a bit here where there’s a draft proposal from the presidents and commissioners for the current Week 0 would become Week 1 for everyone and the whole calendar would either move up a week (e.g. conference championships on Thanksgiving weekend, playoffs presumably starting a week or two later with two rounds played in December and semifinals on NYD) or the rest of the calendar would simply stay the same and schools could have two bye weeks during the season:

https://www.si.com/college/2022/09/21/pr...es-earlier

I don’t quite get the consternation considering that there is a critical mass of games already being played that week, anyway.

Like the article a few weeks ago, there’s absolutely no mention that the Big Ten, or even the Pac 12, are supporting this stance. The Big Ten was quick to poach the heart of the PAC regardless of an 80 year partnership. Until we see Warren weigh in, I’m not assuming they’ve cast their lot with the Rose Bowl.

Neither the Big Ten nor Pac-12 need to say anything publicly. SI is clearly getting their quotes from people that have no ties to or are downright hostile to the Rose Bowl.

Do you think Dellenger, or Dellenger's source, is seriously mischaracterizing the Rose Bowl proposal?

Quote:Ultimately, the Rose Bowl isn’t presenting any proposal that wasn’t vetted by the Big Ten and Pac-12 because those two leagues (a) get everyone else to take it seriously and (b) are the ones negotiating for their own tie-ins for whatever the future Rose Bowl looks like.

I don't know anymore. the proposal outlined (Rose bowl as a NYD semifinal 2 years out of 3) does NOT line up with what the presidents agreed to in their letter.

Quote:While it’s fair to state that we wait to see Warren to officially weigh in, I don’t think people are internalizing the fact that the Rose Bowl is now a game being played in a Big Ten stadium in a Big Ten market after the league has spent the last 100 years being the road team in every major bowl. The Big Ten poaching the Pac-12 didn’t make the B1G’s connection to the Rose Bowl weaker, but rather turn it into the Big Ten effectively owning the Rose Bowl.

Frank, if the magic and tradition of the Rose Bowl is in the connection to the parade, New YEars' Day tradition, sun going down over the San Gabriel mountains, then it's not THAT important that the building is now a "Big Ten stadium".

If it's super important and meaningful that the glorious historic Pasadena Rose Bowl is now a Big Ten stadium 6-7 Saturdays a year, then it's about the building itself and the Rose Bowl game can be played on New YEars Eve or in prime time on Jan 2 every 3rd year.

Quote:What I think the Rose Bowl might be misplaying in these negotiations is that their negotiating position may actually be better with a clean slate for 2026 as opposed to trying to get post-2026 concessions now. In amending the current contract for 2024, everyone has to treat all NY6 bowls equally,

Ehhh, no they don't. The PEach Bowl and Cotton Bowl and Fiesta Bowl are smart enough not to be the ones blamed for blowing up the system. Because if any of the bowls blow up early expansion, that's curtains for the bowls as part of the College Football Playoff.

So if the big bad Big Ten demands that the Rose Bowl gets special treatment, and the SEC agrees to the Big Ten's terms, the lesser NY6 bowls will accept it.

If we're treating all NY6 bowls equally, then the Rose Bowl doesn't get a protected timeslot. Living in the real world, the value of the Rose Bowl compared to the Tostitos Bowl or the Chik-Fil-A PEach Bowl justifies SOME concessions.

Quote:so singling out the Rose Bowl for different treatment is going to get a lot of pushback from multiple parties. In 2026, though, we don’t have to pretend that the Peach Bowl has the same value as the Rose Bowl anymore and is entitled to the same rotation of playoff games, so it’s at that point where the Rose Bowl has more leverage.

Except that by torching early expansion, the Rose Bowl is declaring war. If we;re talking about a clean slate, the playoff doesn't have to include any bowls, at all. The Rose Bowl is the only bowl with any brand value over a College Football Playoff Quarterfinal from Miami or Arlington or New Orleans. The benefits of the Rose Bowl would be balanced against the costs of continuing to include the other 5 parasite committees.

Remember what Warren said about Sears and Roebuck? I wouldn't bet any substantial amount of money that Warren has the Rose Bowl's back, if the Rose Bowl torpedoes early playoff expansion.

Quote:Ultimately, it’s about maximizing revenue and viewers and, at the end of the day, a Rose Bowl that’s hosting a playoff game on NYD is *absolutely* what maximizes revenue and viewers.

I'd tend to agree, except that the Rose Bowl's current proposal seems to only have the Rose Bowl on NYD 2 years out of 3.

Bolded part is key. I'm 100% in favor of the SEC position here, just let all the major bowls rotate 1/3 of the time as SF sites and be done with it. Having said that, I do understand that the Rose Bowl is a cut above the rest, and it's not unreasonable to give them some concessions. However, I am of the opinion that giving them a SF 2/3 of the time is too much concession, and it appears that many others agree. They'll work something out, but it will be interesting to see what that compromise looks like.

(11-29-2022 12:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  To johnbragg - I don't think Dellenger or his source is mischaracterizing the Rose Bowl proposal, but rather that his source clearly has no attachment to the Rose Bowl at all. It might very well be the case that 9 of the 11 FBS voting members and 5 of the NY6 bowls agree with that source. None of that surprises me because this is *exactly* what happened in the negotiations for the 4-team CFP and the negotiations for the BCS system. The key issue, of course, is that those 2 FBS voting members that have a different viewpoint are quite critical to the process. I know the SEC partisans and the rest of college football can talk all they don't care about playing Northern teams and that they'll just have a playoff without the Big Ten and Pac-12, but the TV networks are NOT paying for that system and this ENTIRE exercise is about maximizing TV money.

I don't need to see a source state that the Big Ten and Pac-12 support the Rose Bowl proposal. Instead, I need to see a source state that the Big Ten and Pac-12 *don't* support the Rose Bowl proposal. THAT would be important info. Otherwise, it's disingenuous for any source complaining about the Rose Bowl to try to position this discussion as "Everyone in college football agrees but the Rose Bowl alone is blocking it" when the reality may be closer that 2 out of the P5 conferences don't agree... and once again, despite all of the bluster from SEC country, a proposal where 2 of the P5 conferences aren't signing onto isn't getting signed. The G5 votes are irrelevant here - the Big Ten alone carries more weight than all of them put together.

Now, objectively speaking, neither the Big Ten nor Pac-12 ought to be letting the Rose Bowl just take all of the incoming fire in the media if their goal is to support the Rose Bowl proposal, either. It's fair to ask both leagues to publicly take a stand (although I think George Kliavkoff did say this summer that at least the double-hosting proposal from the Rose Bowl was a "tiny ask").

This post has me thinking about the potential long-term repercussions of the B1G destroying the Pac. 2/5 of the P5 can work together to block just about any serious playoff proposal....but 1/4 could potentially be sidelined, even if that 1 is the B1G (or SEC). Taken in this light, I'm starting to wonder if there will ever be significant momentum in the B1G to take more Pac schools. The pros for it are speculative at best, while the cons are clear for all to see.

(11-29-2022 01:12 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 01:05 PM)esayem Wrote:  Semis on NYD suck for several reasons:

• Delegitimizes current "NY6" bowls by forcing 4/6 each season to play A) quarterfinals around Christmas (horrible for attendance) or B) meaningless consolation games around NYD while campus hosts quarterfinals.

• Minimizes the television impact of a day college football currently owns, one which people will travel for. New Year's Day should have as many important college football games as possible. This means maximize playoff games, and quarterfinals does that better than any other option.

My thoughts:

Why not maximize the current NY6 and play the quarters on NYD, while allowing the Rose Bowl to contract their own meaningless consolation game 1/3 years at whatever time they want on NYD? They'd have to go head-to-head with a playoff game. Good luck, but their choice.

IMO, the easiest solution is to give the Rose Bowl a permanent quarterfinal, but perhaps bowls rotating and hosting semis isn't on the table so allowing Rosey to stay in the permanent rotation is being fought by the other bowls.

No one wants the Rose Bowl to go head-to-head with a playoff game - not the Rose Bowl, not the CFP, and *definitely* not the TV networks. ESPN (or FOX or whoever else) isn't paying a gazillion dollars for playoff games in order to have *any* halfway viable sports competition (hence the consternation with avoiding any time slots that compete with the NFL). So, that's why despite all of the tough talk from people like SI's sources, the CFP leaders realistically *have* to play ball with the Rose Bowl even if they might personally despise them.

Now, I agree with that the easiest solution is to give the Rose Bowl a permanent quarterfinal. As I've stated before, I'm not sure why anyone cares about what the Peach Bowl or Cotton Bowl thinks post-2026. The optimal revenue maximizing solution for everyone is to fully integrate the Rose Bowl specifically into the playoffs. We shouldn't have to pretend that any other bowl matters outside of the Rose Bowl post-2026.

But they do matter if we want to change things for 2024 and 2025. In fact, they matter exactly as much as the Rose Bowl does. And starting in 2026, nobody is going to go up against a CFP quarterfinal or semifinal game, not even the Rose. If they can't work something out to be included as a permanent quarterfinal, the Rose will play the day before or the day after NYD if necessary.

A common sense proposal to me is that the quarters are set permanently for NYD and the Rose gets one of those slots every year (with priority choice for a B1G or Pac team if one is available in the top 4). Heck, let them even pick a 2nd B1G or Pac team as the opponent if one is available. Let the other 5 bowls rotate between quarters and semis.

(11-29-2022 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 12:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  To johnbragg - I don't think Dellenger or his source is mischaracterizing the Rose Bowl proposal, but rather that his source clearly has no attachment to the Rose Bowl at all. It might very well be the case that 9 of the 11 FBS voting members and 5 of the NY6 bowls agree with that source. None of that surprises me because this is *exactly* what happened in the negotiations for the 4-team CFP and the negotiations for the BCS system. The key issue, of course, is that those 2 FBS voting members that have a different viewpoint are quite critical to the process. I know the SEC partisans and the rest of college football can talk all they don't care about playing Northern teams and that they'll just have a playoff without the Big Ten and Pac-12, but the TV networks are NOT paying for that system and this ENTIRE exercise is about maximizing TV money.

I don't need to see a source state that the Big Ten and Pac-12 support the Rose Bowl proposal. Instead, I need to see a source state that the Big Ten and Pac-12 *don't* support the Rose Bowl proposal. THAT would be important info. Otherwise, it's disingenuous for any source complaining about the Rose Bowl to try to position this discussion as "Everyone in college football agrees but the Rose Bowl alone is blocking it" when the reality may be closer that 2 out of the P5 conferences don't agree... and once again, despite all of the bluster from SEC country, a proposal where 2 of the P5 conferences aren't signing onto isn't getting signed. The G5 votes are irrelevant here - the Big Ten alone carries more weight than all of them put together.

Now, objectively speaking, neither the Big Ten nor Pac-12 ought to be letting the Rose Bowl just take all of the incoming fire in the media if their goal is to support the Rose Bowl proposal, either. It's fair to ask both leagues to publicly take a stand (although I think George Kliavkoff did say this summer that at least the double-hosting proposal from the Rose Bowl was a "tiny ask").

Bolded comment #1: If an equitable solution isn't found, those in the South will use the gravitas they've earned on the field and court to host their own events. All of something is better than none of everything.

Bolded comment #2: Nothing but hubris by a bunch of folks who haven't won but a couple of titles in a money sport in the last 2 decades and then by one school.

The Big 10 is a fine collection of top academic schools. It's only a backdrop to football and basketball championships. 1999 Michigan State in hoops and 2 by Ohio State in football are your marks.

You are part of the picture, but hardly the focus. And you are completely inundated by the self-importance of the Northern bubble you live in. You have a total disconnect from the reality of life in the South and how little we think about you on any kind of daily basis. Anywhere in the country you go you will find that the non-corporate normal people are only concerned with what is local.

What ticks me off Frank is that college football as a whole is about to take a major knock in terms of actual adoring fans when Boomer's pass, and instead of working together to build the game up, the Big 10 has chosen to be a bone of contention to inhibit moves which need to be made to bolster its popularity, and it has done so on the eve of the crucial paradigm shift. Maybe there's a reason you want to focus on Big 10 basketball? But there is less success there in terms of titles than in football these past 20 years.

It's what we in the South would call stupid and selfish. But hey, our people still love the game, still support high school sports, though not at levels seen in the 70's, and really, and I mean really, care the most about playing their rivals in state and in neighboring states. It does "just mean more."

Therefore, the optics and noise over the Rose Bowl, means nothing to them, but is seen as obstructionism. And if you don't grasp just how much more the South would be fine with only playing games with Southern schools then it is you who are full of the bluster and are partisan.

The average SEC fan doesn't give a hoot about what goes on in the Big 10, or if it even exists. What you call partisan is simply regionalism. And what you call bluster is merely option #2 if you all don't get your crap together!

I think you're misunderstanding me here. I have little doubt that the South would be more than happy to just have an all-South college football playoff or that the SEC would want to hold an 8-team tournament and then crown the winner as National Champion. On that front, I don't dispute that attitude of Southern *fans* at all.

However, whether you like it or not, TV networks care a LOT about the North. The 4 largest TV markets (NYC, LA, Chicago and Philly) are in the Big Ten footprint. The nation's financial, media and cultural power centers (NYC, LA and DC) are in the Big Ten footprint. This would be like the people in Northern England (who have a lot of cultural and political commonalities with the American South) trying to tell the TV networks in the UK that they're better off just not including London because they're more "live or die" passionate about their respective local soccer teams (which is similar to the argument that Southerners make about college football support). That would be completely asinine in the UK and it would similarly be completely asinine to think that the US TV networks would want a playoff that excludes the 4 largest TV markets in this country with huge fan bases. It's why, despite ALL of the on-the-field success of the SEC and ALL of those rabid Southern fans that you speak of that I supposedly don't understand, the Big Ten has garnered a larger TV contract than the SEC every single time this century, including now. (You can go ahead and trot out all of those team valuation figures and overall athletic department revenue metrics that you've done before, but the TV networks that are national and have no loyalty to anything than other the bottom line have continuously valued the Big Ten more than the SEC.) The largest regular season college football TV audience of the last 11 years just happened this past weekend... and it was in that supposedly "less interested" North between Michigan and Ohio State.

So, the Big Ten or Northerners or me personally aren't the ones with the hubris here. I'm not the one with any self-importance - in fact, I have been 100% consistent in supporting this 12-team playoff from the very beginning and pushed back against everyone (including Big Ten fans) that thought it was some type of underhanded way for the SEC to get more power. The 12-team playoff is great for the sport even if the SEC might be the biggest beneficiary. I clearly have never thought or argued that a national college football playoff can't include the SEC. The fact that you think that a national college football playoff could somehow not include the Big Ten is reflective of your own hubris and/or misguided conceptions of the North. For whatever reason, you seem to think the South has some sort of monopoly on passionate college football fans when the objective data shows that it isn't the case (and that's with the Big Ten footprint being able to support their NFL teams at the very highest levels in that sport with far more loyalty than the South, too, so please stop with the "we love the game of football more in the South" argument).

(11-29-2022 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 12:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  To johnbragg - I don't think Dellenger or his source is mischaracterizing the Rose Bowl proposal, but rather that his source clearly has no attachment to the Rose Bowl at all. It might very well be the case that 9 of the 11 FBS voting members and 5 of the NY6 bowls agree with that source. None of that surprises me because this is *exactly* what happened in the negotiations for the 4-team CFP and the negotiations for the BCS system. The key issue, of course, is that those 2 FBS voting members that have a different viewpoint are quite critical to the process. I know the SEC partisans and the rest of college football can talk all they don't care about playing Northern teams and that they'll just have a playoff without the Big Ten and Pac-12, but the TV networks are NOT paying for that system and this ENTIRE exercise is about maximizing TV money.

I don't need to see a source state that the Big Ten and Pac-12 support the Rose Bowl proposal. Instead, I need to see a source state that the Big Ten and Pac-12 *don't* support the Rose Bowl proposal. THAT would be important info. Otherwise, it's disingenuous for any source complaining about the Rose Bowl to try to position this discussion as "Everyone in college football agrees but the Rose Bowl alone is blocking it" when the reality may be closer that 2 out of the P5 conferences don't agree... and once again, despite all of the bluster from SEC country, a proposal where 2 of the P5 conferences aren't signing onto isn't getting signed. The G5 votes are irrelevant here - the Big Ten alone carries more weight than all of them put together.

Now, objectively speaking, neither the Big Ten nor Pac-12 ought to be letting the Rose Bowl just take all of the incoming fire in the media if their goal is to support the Rose Bowl proposal, either. It's fair to ask both leagues to publicly take a stand (although I think George Kliavkoff did say this summer that at least the double-hosting proposal from the Rose Bowl was a "tiny ask").

Bolded comment #1: If an equitable solution isn't found, those in the South will use the gravitas they've earned on the field and court to host their own events. All of something is better than none of everything.

Bolded comment #2: Nothing but hubris by a bunch of folks who haven't won but a couple of titles in a money sport in the last 2 decades and then by one school.

The Big 10 is a fine collection of top academic schools. It's only a backdrop to football and basketball championships. 1999 Michigan State in hoops and 2 by Ohio State in football are your marks.

You are part of the picture, but hardly the focus. And you are completely inundated by the self-importance of the Northern bubble you live in. You have a total disconnect from the reality of life in the South and how little we think about you on any kind of daily basis. Anywhere in the country you go you will find that the non-corporate normal people are only concerned with what is local.

What ticks me off Frank is that college football as a whole is about to take a major knock in terms of actual adoring fans when Boomer's pass, and instead of working together to build the game up, the Big 10 has chosen to be a bone of contention to inhibit moves which need to be made to bolster its popularity, and it has done so on the eve of the crucial paradigm shift. Maybe there's a reason you want to focus on Big 10 basketball? But there is less success there in terms of titles than in football these past 20 years.

It's what we in the South would call stupid and selfish. But hey, our people still love the game, still support high school sports, though not at levels seen in the 70's, and really, and I mean really, care the most about playing their rivals in state and in neighboring states. It does "just mean more."

Therefore, the optics and noise over the Rose Bowl, means nothing to them, but is seen as obstructionism. And if you don't grasp just how much more the South would be fine with only playing games with Southern schools then it is you who are full of the bluster and are partisan.

The average SEC fan doesn't give a hoot about what goes on in the Big 10, or if it even exists. What you call partisan is simply regionalism. And what you call bluster is merely option #2 if you all don't get your crap together!

Regarding the current discussion between you and Frank, all we're really talking about here is finding some reasonable accommodation for the Rose. They're not operating in a vacuum, and this isn't "B1G vs the world" but rather "2 of the P5 trying to find a way to sort out a disagreement with the other 3 P5".

As far as the SEC taking our ball and going it alone, or with 9/11 of the conferences and leaving the B1G/Pac behind, we aren't going to do that over a minor accommodation for the Rose Bowl. We would make more money than a B1G/Pac league certainly, but it would be a LOT less than we could make with everyone united. If a schism like that happens, it would be due to irreconcilable differences, perhaps major disagreements on Academic standards, or NIL, or official Professionalism in College Sports.

(11-29-2022 01:57 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 12:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  To johnbragg - I don't think Dellenger or his source is mischaracterizing the Rose Bowl proposal, but rather that his source clearly has no attachment to the Rose Bowl at all. It might very well be the case that 9 of the 11 FBS voting members and 5 of the NY6 bowls agree with that source. None of that surprises me because this is *exactly* what happened in the negotiations for the 4-team CFP and the negotiations for the BCS system. The key issue, of course, is that those 2 FBS voting members that have a different viewpoint are quite critical to the process. I know the SEC partisans and the rest of college football can talk all they don't care about playing Northern teams and that they'll just have a playoff without the Big Ten and Pac-12, but the TV networks are NOT paying for that system and this ENTIRE exercise is about maximizing TV money.

I don't need to see a source state that the Big Ten and Pac-12 support the Rose Bowl proposal. Instead, I need to see a source state that the Big Ten and Pac-12 *don't* support the Rose Bowl proposal. THAT would be important info. Otherwise, it's disingenuous for any source complaining about the Rose Bowl to try to position this discussion as "Everyone in college football agrees but the Rose Bowl alone is blocking it" when the reality may be closer that 2 out of the P5 conferences don't agree... and once again, despite all of the bluster from SEC country, a proposal where 2 of the P5 conferences aren't signing onto isn't getting signed. The G5 votes are irrelevant here - the Big Ten alone carries more weight than all of them put together.

Now, objectively speaking, neither the Big Ten nor Pac-12 ought to be letting the Rose Bowl just take all of the incoming fire in the media if their goal is to support the Rose Bowl proposal, either. It's fair to ask both leagues to publicly take a stand (although I think George Kliavkoff did say this summer that at least the double-hosting proposal from the Rose Bowl was a "tiny ask").

This post has me thinking about the potential long-term repercussions of the B1G destroying the Pac. 2/5 of the P5 can work together to block just about any serious playoff proposal....but 1/4 could potentially be sidelined, even if that 1 is the B1G (or SEC). Taken in this light, I'm starting to wonder if there will ever be significant momentum in the B1G to take more Pac schools. The pros for it are speculative at best, while the cons are clear for all to see.

Really? This is a numbers game being played by the Networks in which the one who has the most voting Power conference members under contract gets a leg up on setting the agenda for the game moving forward. You currently have 30 under ESPN control. The Big 12 is divided. FOX has 16 in the Big 10 and part of the Big 12. The PAC is the likeliest source for schools to fall under FOX control, but FOX doesn't want to pay for the whole PAC 12 anymore than ESPN does. Another 4 to 7 schools from the PAC to the Big 10 helps their position.

The question is whether the upper tier is going to grow to 72 or shrink to 60. I like 72 because I believe it solves issues with regard to damages and protects familiar win / loss records.

Once unequal revenue distribution is accepted consolidation will continue. Oregon, Washington, Stanford, California, and possibly others may look soberly at the fact that while making what Ohio State does is out of the question, making a good bit more than what they do now is not. When the pride is swallowed, and reality accepted it would behoove them to make that move.

Things stand similarly between the SEC and ACC. The caveat there is that unless the ACC is threatened by a Big 10 raid, I do not see the SEC moving on them. A healthy, or stable, ACC is a reasonable buffer for the SEC against Big 10 incursion. ESPN would likely be content with that as well. If, however, money was a major lure for key ACC brands then unequal revenue sharing in a merger would provide a pathway for ESPN to fully retain all of those properties.

In house hoops challenges may be harbinger of things to come. What if the next shoe that drops is the Sugar Bowl opponent? ESPN could build up the ACC and SEC a bit more from the Big 12 if votes for the future become an issue.

In conclusion, and to return to the original point, the Network view of the landscape could very well indicate further consolidation as a means of control of the sport, or events within it. If the Big 10 were to take 4 more of the original PAC 8 members, then the Rose Bowl issue becomes an in-house issue, as the Sugar Bowl may well become an in-house issue, and perhaps other bowls as well.

How can the networks (assuming there is some cooperation between FOX and ESPN) assure a massive market for expanded playoffs? By paring down the venues and promoting enough chill between the Big 10/PAC and SEC/ACC to make sure that each plays off to provide an entrant in the finals.

It's the only way to guarantee national attention. Should the Playoff advance as proposed the Big 10 could be eliminated before the finals, or the SEC, and then one of your two largest impassioned fan bases will be impeded in viewing. Essentially merge the Big 10/PAC and SEC/ACC and divide the Big 12 between them and what happens? The NFC and AFC hold a super bowl after their own playoffs (regional bowls).

Fiesta and Rose on one side Sugar and Orange on the other. If the Big 12 is divided then Texas bowls become viable for both, particularly the Cotton.

The Rose bowl and Sugar bowl become in house concerns.

If you were truly Machiavellian, like most corporations are, all you need is a sufficient beef to merit the initial division into two groups. I'd say we are headed there.

Think BYU, Cincinnati, Houston, Texas Tech, T.C.U., Arizona State, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, San Diego State, Oregon State, Washington State become the B10/PAC aligned schools.

The 7 other AAU PAC 12 schools plus Notre Dame become the Big 10/PAC merger of 24. That's 36 schools

The SEC/ACC has 30 plus Baylor, UCF, West Virginia, U.S.F., Tulane and Kansas. (It's a hypothetical but hang with me.)

You now can divide into divisions of 6 each, play all games in house (11 games) and have one against the other Conference (think Bedlam).

The Big 10/ PAC / Big 12 West settles their matters as they see fit. The SEC / ACC / Big 12 East remnant settles their matters as they see fit. The two champs play their version of the college super bowl, and the nation stays tuned in. FOX has its league and ESPN has theirs. If the Big 10 wants to finish by Thanksgiving, they can, and the Rose Bowl will be played when they want it played. The South can do its own thing.

And now you have a date in January the two can agree upon for the championship. Both sides get what they want. Both fan bases get what they love. Win/Win!

You have 72 schools (inclusion not exclusion) two champs, greater access for both leagues, more regional play for fans and to save on travel, two sets of internal playoffs where both sides keep all of their own revenue, and one whopping money maker to end it. Both networks come out on top with the one OOC game per school for national audience x 16 each and the Uber Bowl of CFB.

(11-29-2022 02:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 01:57 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 12:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  To johnbragg - I don't think Dellenger or his source is mischaracterizing the Rose Bowl proposal, but rather that his source clearly has no attachment to the Rose Bowl at all. It might very well be the case that 9 of the 11 FBS voting members and 5 of the NY6 bowls agree with that source. None of that surprises me because this is *exactly* what happened in the negotiations for the 4-team CFP and the negotiations for the BCS system. The key issue, of course, is that those 2 FBS voting members that have a different viewpoint are quite critical to the process. I know the SEC partisans and the rest of college football can talk all they don't care about playing Northern teams and that they'll just have a playoff without the Big Ten and Pac-12, but the TV networks are NOT paying for that system and this ENTIRE exercise is about maximizing TV money.

I don't need to see a source state that the Big Ten and Pac-12 support the Rose Bowl proposal. Instead, I need to see a source state that the Big Ten and Pac-12 *don't* support the Rose Bowl proposal. THAT would be important info. Otherwise, it's disingenuous for any source complaining about the Rose Bowl to try to position this discussion as "Everyone in college football agrees but the Rose Bowl alone is blocking it" when the reality may be closer that 2 out of the P5 conferences don't agree... and once again, despite all of the bluster from SEC country, a proposal where 2 of the P5 conferences aren't signing onto isn't getting signed. The G5 votes are irrelevant here - the Big Ten alone carries more weight than all of them put together.

Now, objectively speaking, neither the Big Ten nor Pac-12 ought to be letting the Rose Bowl just take all of the incoming fire in the media if their goal is to support the Rose Bowl proposal, either. It's fair to ask both leagues to publicly take a stand (although I think George Kliavkoff did say this summer that at least the double-hosting proposal from the Rose Bowl was a "tiny ask").

This post has me thinking about the potential long-term repercussions of the B1G destroying the Pac. 2/5 of the P5 can work together to block just about any serious playoff proposal....but 1/4 could potentially be sidelined, even if that 1 is the B1G (or SEC). Taken in this light, I'm starting to wonder if there will ever be significant momentum in the B1G to take more Pac schools. The pros for it are speculative at best, while the cons are clear for all to see.

Really? This is a numbers game being played by the Networks in which the one who has the most voting Power conference members under contract gets a leg up on setting the agenda for the game moving forward. You currently have 30 under ESPN control. The Big 12 is divided. FOX has 16 in the Big 10 and part of the Big 12. The PAC is the likeliest source for schools to fall under FOX control, but FOX doesn't want to pay for the whole PAC 12 anymore than ESPN does. Another 4 to 7 schools from the PAC to the Big 10 helps their position.

The question is whether the upper tier is going to grow to 72 or shrink to 60. I like 72 because I believe it solves issues with regard to damages and protects familiar win / loss records.

Once unequal revenue distribution is accepted consolidation will continue. Oregon, Washington, Stanford, California, and possibly others may look soberly at the fact that while making what Ohio State does is out of the question, making a good bit more than what they do now is not. When the pride is swallowed, and reality accepted it would behoove them to make that move.

Things stand similarly between the SEC and ACC. The caveat there is that unless the ACC is threatened by a Big 10 raid, I do not see the SEC moving on them. A healthy, or stable, ACC is a reasonable buffer for the SEC against Big 10 incursion. ESPN would likely be content with that as well. If, however, money was a major lure for key ACC brands then unequal revenue sharing in a merger would provide a pathway for ESPN to fully retain all of those properties.

In house hoops challenges may be harbinger of things to come. What if the next shoe that drops is the Sugar Bowl opponent? ESPN could build up the ACC and SEC a bit more from the Big 12 if votes for the future become an issue.

In conclusion, and to return to the original point, the Network view of the landscape could very well indicate further consolidation as a means of control of the sport, or events within it. If the Big 10 were to take 4 more of the original PAC 8 members, then the Rose Bowl issue becomes an in-house issue, as the Sugar Bowl may well become an in-house issue, and perhaps other bowls as well.

How can the networks (assuming there is some cooperation between FOX and ESPN) assure a massive market for expanded playoffs? By paring down the venues and promoting enough chill between the Big 10/PAC and SEC/ACC to make sure that each plays off to provide an entrant in the finals.

It's the only way to guarantee national attention. Should the Playoff advance as proposed the Big 10 could be eliminated before the finals, or the SEC, and then one of your two largest impassioned fan bases will be impeded in viewing. Essentially merge the Big 10/PAC and SEC/ACC and divide the Big 12 between them and what happens? The NFC and AFC hold a super bowl after their own playoffs (regional bowls).

Fiesta and Rose on one side Sugar and Orange on the other. If the Big 12 is divided then Texas bowls become viable for both, particularly the Cotton.

The Rose bowl and Sugar bowl become in house concerns.

If you were truly Machiavellian, like most corporations are, all you need is a sufficient beef to merit the initial division into two groups. I'd say we are headed there.

Think BYU, Cincinnati, Houston, Texas Tech, T.C.U., Arizona State, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, San Diego State, Oregon State, Washington State become the B10/PAC aligned schools.

The 7 other AAU PAC 12 schools plus Notre Dame become the Big 10/PAC merger of 24. That's 36 schools

The SEC/ACC has 30 plus Baylor, UCF, West Virginia, U.S.F., Tulane and Kansas. (It's a hypothetical but hang with me.)

You now can divide into divisions of 6 each, play all games in house (11 games) and have one against the other Conference (think Bedlam).

The Big 10/ PAC / Big 12 West settles their matters as they see fit. The SEC / ACC / Big 12 East remnant settles their matters as they see fit. The two champs play their version of the college super bowl, and the nation stays tuned in. FOX has its league and ESPN has theirs. If the Big 10 wants to finish by Thanksgiving, they can, and the Rose Bowl will be played when they want it played. The South can do its own thing.

And now you have a date in January the two can agree upon for the championship. Both sides get what they want. Both fan bases get what they love. Win/Win!

You have 72 schools (inclusion not exclusion) two champs, greater access for both leagues, more regional play for fans and to save on travel, two sets of internal playoffs where both sides keep all of their own revenue, and one whopping money maker to end it. Both networks come out on top with the one OOC game per school for national audience x 16 each and the Uber Bowl of CFB.

If we end up with 3 conferences, something like the 3 x 24 that we talk about a lot, then I could see the B1G taking most of the remainders in the Pac, including some of the 4c. But if it's 4 x 18? In that case, the B1G and SEC each take 2 from the ACC/Pac, then the 3 remaining P's sort themselves from 3 into 2 in some form. Something like:

FSU/Clemson: SEC
UNC/Washington: B1G

I almost put UVA in that last slot, but Washington is clearly superior Athletically to everyone left in the ACC (taking out Miami of 30-40 years ago ofc), and also they're basically UCLA North Academically.

Something like that, whether it happens in 2026 or 2036, would possibly but not certainly lead to consolidation into a P4 of 4 x 18. It might lead to a funky P4 of 2x18 (SEC/B1G), 1 x 22 (big 12 adds 9 from Pac +1 other, likely SDSU or SMU), and 1 x 14 with whatever the ACC ends up with. Ideally the big 12 would send a few eastern schools to the ACC to get us to 4 x 18, but that's not a guarantee. Something like:

new new big 12:
the 8 big 12 leftovers
BYU
the 9 pac leftovers

new ACC:
11 ACC leftovers
WV
Cincy
UCF
Memphis
SMU
USF
??? 18th mystery team - Liberty or some AAC team? Maybe UTSA or UNT

I'm unsure of the 18th team in the ACC. The big losers here are Boise and SDSU as they'd both get left out. Though, as I look at this list, I don't see why the big 12 willingly trades WV, Cincy and UCF for WSU and OSU and Cal. I think that it would be cleaner and easier (assuming the P2 stop at 18), but it probably won't happen.

(11-29-2022 03:10 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 02:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 01:57 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 12:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  To johnbragg - I don't think Dellenger or his source is mischaracterizing the Rose Bowl proposal, but rather that his source clearly has no attachment to the Rose Bowl at all. It might very well be the case that 9 of the 11 FBS voting members and 5 of the NY6 bowls agree with that source. None of that surprises me because this is *exactly* what happened in the negotiations for the 4-team CFP and the negotiations for the BCS system. The key issue, of course, is that those 2 FBS voting members that have a different viewpoint are quite critical to the process. I know the SEC partisans and the rest of college football can talk all they don't care about playing Northern teams and that they'll just have a playoff without the Big Ten and Pac-12, but the TV networks are NOT paying for that system and this ENTIRE exercise is about maximizing TV money.

I don't need to see a source state that the Big Ten and Pac-12 support the Rose Bowl proposal. Instead, I need to see a source state that the Big Ten and Pac-12 *don't* support the Rose Bowl proposal. THAT would be important info. Otherwise, it's disingenuous for any source complaining about the Rose Bowl to try to position this discussion as "Everyone in college football agrees but the Rose Bowl alone is blocking it" when the reality may be closer that 2 out of the P5 conferences don't agree... and once again, despite all of the bluster from SEC country, a proposal where 2 of the P5 conferences aren't signing onto isn't getting signed. The G5 votes are irrelevant here - the Big Ten alone carries more weight than all of them put together.

Now, objectively speaking, neither the Big Ten nor Pac-12 ought to be letting the Rose Bowl just take all of the incoming fire in the media if their goal is to support the Rose Bowl proposal, either. It's fair to ask both leagues to publicly take a stand (although I think George Kliavkoff did say this summer that at least the double-hosting proposal from the Rose Bowl was a "tiny ask").

This post has me thinking about the potential long-term repercussions of the B1G destroying the Pac. 2/5 of the P5 can work together to block just about any serious playoff proposal....but 1/4 could potentially be sidelined, even if that 1 is the B1G (or SEC). Taken in this light, I'm starting to wonder if there will ever be significant momentum in the B1G to take more Pac schools. The pros for it are speculative at best, while the cons are clear for all to see.

Really? This is a numbers game being played by the Networks in which the one who has the most voting Power conference members under contract gets a leg up on setting the agenda for the game moving forward. You currently have 30 under ESPN control. The Big 12 is divided. FOX has 16 in the Big 10 and part of the Big 12. The PAC is the likeliest source for schools to fall under FOX control, but FOX doesn't want to pay for the whole PAC 12 anymore than ESPN does. Another 4 to 7 schools from the PAC to the Big 10 helps their position.

The question is whether the upper tier is going to grow to 72 or shrink to 60. I like 72 because I believe it solves issues with regard to damages and protects familiar win / loss records.

Once unequal revenue distribution is accepted consolidation will continue. Oregon, Washington, Stanford, California, and possibly others may look soberly at the fact that while making what Ohio State does is out of the question, making a good bit more than what they do now is not. When the pride is swallowed, and reality accepted it would behoove them to make that move.

Things stand similarly between the SEC and ACC. The caveat there is that unless the ACC is threatened by a Big 10 raid, I do not see the SEC moving on them. A healthy, or stable, ACC is a reasonable buffer for the SEC against Big 10 incursion. ESPN would likely be content with that as well. If, however, money was a major lure for key ACC brands then unequal revenue sharing in a merger would provide a pathway for ESPN to fully retain all of those properties.

In house hoops challenges may be harbinger of things to come. What if the next shoe that drops is the Sugar Bowl opponent? ESPN could build up the ACC and SEC a bit more from the Big 12 if votes for the future become an issue.

In conclusion, and to return to the original point, the Network view of the landscape could very well indicate further consolidation as a means of control of the sport, or events within it. If the Big 10 were to take 4 more of the original PAC 8 members, then the Rose Bowl issue becomes an in-house issue, as the Sugar Bowl may well become an in-house issue, and perhaps other bowls as well.

How can the networks (assuming there is some cooperation between FOX and ESPN) assure a massive market for expanded playoffs? By paring down the venues and promoting enough chill between the Big 10/PAC and SEC/ACC to make sure that each plays off to provide an entrant in the finals.

It's the only way to guarantee national attention. Should the Playoff advance as proposed the Big 10 could be eliminated before the finals, or the SEC, and then one of your two largest impassioned fan bases will be impeded in viewing. Essentially merge the Big 10/PAC and SEC/ACC and divide the Big 12 between them and what happens? The NFC and AFC hold a super bowl after their own playoffs (regional bowls).

Fiesta and Rose on one side Sugar and Orange on the other. If the Big 12 is divided then Texas bowls become viable for both, particularly the Cotton.

The Rose bowl and Sugar bowl become in house concerns.

If you were truly Machiavellian, like most corporations are, all you need is a sufficient beef to merit the initial division into two groups. I'd say we are headed there.

Think BYU, Cincinnati, Houston, Texas Tech, T.C.U., Arizona State, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, San Diego State, Oregon State, Washington State become the B10/PAC aligned schools.

The 7 other AAU PAC 12 schools plus Notre Dame become the Big 10/PAC merger of 24. That's 36 schools

The SEC/ACC has 30 plus Baylor, UCF, West Virginia, U.S.F., Tulane and Kansas. (It's a hypothetical but hang with me.)

You now can divide into divisions of 6 each, play all games in house (11 games) and have one against the other Conference (think Bedlam).

The Big 10/ PAC / Big 12 West settles their matters as they see fit. The SEC / ACC / Big 12 East remnant settles their matters as they see fit. The two champs play their version of the college super bowl, and the nation stays tuned in. FOX has its league and ESPN has theirs. If the Big 10 wants to finish by Thanksgiving, they can, and the Rose Bowl will be played when they want it played. The South can do its own thing.

And now you have a date in January the two can agree upon for the championship. Both sides get what they want. Both fan bases get what they love. Win/Win!

You have 72 schools (inclusion not exclusion) two champs, greater access for both leagues, more regional play for fans and to save on travel, two sets of internal playoffs where both sides keep all of their own revenue, and one whopping money maker to end it. Both networks come out on top with the one OOC game per school for national audience x 16 each and the Uber Bowl of CFB.

If we end up with 3 conferences, something like the 3 x 24 that we talk about a lot, then I could see the B1G taking most of the remainders in the Pac, including some of the 4c. But if it's 4 x 18? In that case, the B1G and SEC each take 2 from the ACC/Pac, then the 3 remaining P's sort themselves from 3 into 2 in some form. Something like:

FSU/Clemson: SEC
UNC/Washington: B1G

I almost put UVA in that last slot, but Washington is clearly superior Athletically to everyone left in the ACC (taking out Miami of 30-40 years ago ofc), and also they're basically UCLA North Academically.

Something like that, whether it happens in 2026 or 2036, would possibly but not certainly lead to consolidation into a P4 of 4 x 18. It might lead to a funky P4 of 2x18 (SEC/B1G), 1 x 22 (big 12 adds 9 from Pac +1 other, likely SDSU or SMU), and 1 x 14 with whatever the ACC ends up with. Ideally the big 12 would send a few eastern schools to the ACC to get us to 4 x 18, but that's not a guarantee. Something like:

new new big 12:
the 8 big 12 leftovers
BYU
the 9 pac leftovers

new ACC:
11 ACC leftovers
WV
Cincy
UCF
Memphis
SMU
USF
??? 18th mystery team - Liberty or some AAC team? Maybe UTSA or UNT

I'm unsure of the 18th team in the ACC. The big losers here are Boise and SDSU as they'd both get left out. Though, as I look at this list, I don't see why the big 12 willingly trades WV, Cincy and UCF for WSU and OSU and Cal. I think that it would be cleaner and easier (assuming the P2 stop at 18), but it probably won't happen.

I'm not sure we need to think about a 3 x 24. Two leagues of 36 schools each don't even have to be in the same conference as along as conference divisions comprise the league. Let's say the Big 10 moves to 24, the SEC and ACC each move to 18, and the Big 12 stays at 12. The Big 10/PAC would have 4 six team divisions and the Big 12 (separate conference) 2 six team divisions. Those divisions compete within their league for championships. Meanwhile the SEC and ACC have 3 six team divisions each, but share the championship competition of their league.

This set up avoids the issue of academic compatibility for the Big 10 but allows for market reach as the league can sell 3rd tier rights and divide the proceeds 36 ways. Games in Texas can be scheduled for recruiting without having to call Texas Tech or T.C.U. or Houston "Big 10 schools". More scheduling between the ACC and SEC will simply help the ACC's bottom line without having to cost the SEC. And neither side has to cooperate on anything but the championship game. That was the gist of my post.