(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.