(11-29-2022 04:08 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 03:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 01:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  To me, the biggest piece of news here is that the expansion for 2024 and 2025 is NOT tied in to 2026 and beyond.

A source said the CFP has assured the Rose Bowl it will do everything it can to work around the Jan. 1 2 p.m. PT slot, but has asked all of the bowls to take a leap of faith because the commissioners can't be bound to promises that will or won't impact the value as they're trying to negotiate the next deal.

Because this was ALWAYS the way it should have been. You cant open the playoff to other networks when you've already sold the EXCLUSIVE rights to the playoff to ESPN through 2025. So---it ALWAYS made sense to expand the playoff ASAP and take whatever you can squeeze out of ESPN in those years. Yes---the Big10 and Pac12 are correct---its best if the CFP is shared among multiple networks---but that cant be fixed until the end of the current deal (and that has ALWAYS been an unarguable contractual fact). Making that inability to open it up to other networks a do or die factor in early expansion simply means you were guaranteed to leave additional money on the table over the next few years for really no good reason. In other words---either way---you're still end up with the CFP televised by just one network through the end of the current deal whether you expand early or not.

Well, you could have worked out with ESPN what a reasonable way to split the package was going forward.

I was wrong about this--I expected ESPN to use early playoff expansion as a bargaining chip to secure their red lines for 2026 and beyond, whatever they are. Now they're in a position where, theoretically, Amazon could just roll in and buy the whole thing.

I would have tried to do just that. However, it's entirely possible that the price tag just gets to be too much for ESPN to handle on their own, or at all. Are they even a split partner if the total package is $3b a year? Disney and Amazon stock have both lost nearly 50% of their value this year, they are in fact very much in line with Netflix's drop. I'm starting to wonder if Apple doesn't just swoop in and buy everything in 2026.

(11-29-2022 01:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, nobody should be asking for assurances in the 2026 and beyond deal. Everything being negotiated right now should be about 2024 and 2025 only.

If the RB is worried about precedent being set, it should ask for, and receive, a written assurance that nothing agreed to for 2024/2025 will be regarded as the "status quo" or precedent for 2026.

Agreed. They are really overplaying their hand and creating bad blood.

I'm often wrong about things around here, but one thing IIRC I was right about was I never thought the SEC would somehow go to bat for ESPN, insist that ESPN be the sole network holder of the 2026-and-beyond rights. It seemed to me that it was in their interest to have multiple networks involved too.

(11-29-2022 07:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I'm often wrong about things around here, but one thing IIRC I was right about was I never thought the SEC would somehow go to bat for ESPN, insist that ESPN be the sole network holder of the 2026-and-beyond rights. It seemed to me that it was in their interest to have multiple networks involved too.

The SEC has a business relationship with ABC/ESPN, but Sankey would be the first to acknowledge helping Disney with its bottom line is not his primary concern.

If, as some project, the B1G's new FOX/CBS/NBC (and Partner #4?) deal comes in significantly ahead of the SEC's longer media rights agreement, those school administrators to whom the commissioner answers will be (at least privately) grumbling.

Any way Sankey can ease that discontent will make his life better

(11-29-2022 03:48 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  There's a whole lot of drama going on here, but it's just for 2 years. It will almost certainly get punted. The big drama will play out starting in 2026...which they should start talking about the day after they get 24/25 sorted.

I wonder if the Rose isn't causing themselves and also all the other bowls needless complications for the future? If I'm on the Committee, I'm starting to wonder if I want to jack around with the bowls at all starting in 2026. Just announce your 2026 schedule and see if the Rose or any other major bowl really wants to go up against a CFP playoff game. First round and quarterfinals on home sites, Semis and Final are all 3 bid out every year. That might not be the most likely outcome today, but if the Rose doesn't back down then it could become the most likely outcome Thursday.

Maybe it's a bit of a short term pain, but it would break the backs of all the bowls eventually, taking out 6 groups that often have their own agenda and can be at odds with all the Commissioners and Presidents at times.

In reality, maybe a divorce between the Playoff and the bowls would be better for the sport long term. They've tried to work together but the two have agendas that aren't compatible. In the current format, we have the Rose AND the Sugar that decided they wanted New Year's Day (January 2 when NYD is on a Sunday) to themselves and the CFP was stuck having to work around it. The Rose Bowl is getting a lot of grief but let's be honest, none of the NY6 or any major bowl really wants their bowl significantly away from New Year's Day as the CFP is proposing. The Rose Bowl is the only one with the guts to publicly stick up for themselves but I guarantee you the Orange and Sugar want what the Rose says they want too in terms of dates and rounds.

I still don't know how the university Presidents are OK with three Playoff rounds in January. They have long been known to resist expansion of football into "second semester". It's one thing for them to go with the four team, "plus one", that's just an additional week after New Year's Day. This is two extra weeks after NYD and four teams. Most commissioners probably don't have universities to run. Kevin Warren never worked for a university (his executive experience before the Big Ten was in the NFL). Kliavkoff also is a business man, not a university man. So is Yormark. These people don't give a crap about the academic side of college sports, they're just looking at dollar signs. It's the Presidents that have to say enough is enough.

(11-30-2022 07:36 AM)schmolik Wrote:  In reality, maybe a divorce between the Playoff and the bowls would be better for the sport long term. They've tried to work together but the two have agendas that aren't compatible. In the current format, we have the Rose AND the Sugar that decided they wanted New Year's Day (January 2 when NYD is on a Sunday) to themselves and the CFP was stuck having to work around it. The Rose Bowl is getting a lot of grief but let's be honest, none of the NY6 or any major bowl really wants their bowl significantly away from New Year's Day as the CFP is proposing. The Rose Bowl is the only one with the guts to publicly stick up for themselves but I guarantee you the Orange and Sugar want what the Rose says they want too in terms of dates and rounds.

I still don't know how the university Presidents are OK with three Playoff rounds in January. They have long been known to resist expansion of football into "second semester". It's one thing for them to go with the four team, "plus one", that's just an additional week after New Year's Day. This is two extra weeks after NYD and four teams. Most commissioners probably don't have universities to run. Kevin Warren never worked for a university (his executive experience before the Big Ten was in the NFL). Kliavkoff also is a business man, not a university man. So is Yormark. These people don't give a crap about the academic side of college sports, they're just looking at dollar signs. It's the Presidents that have to say enough is enough.

It is mind boggling, but then again, I think the Presidents want to distance the school from the athletic department and have it run as its own corporate entity. The players need to unionize and collectively bargain. I just don't think the Presidents want to have a large hand in that as they deliniate more of the work to their directors and business people while collecting a fat paycheck.

(11-30-2022 07:36 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 03:48 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  There's a whole lot of drama going on here, but it's just for 2 years. It will almost certainly get punted. The big drama will play out starting in 2026...which they should start talking about the day after they get 24/25 sorted.

I wonder if the Rose isn't causing themselves and also all the other bowls needless complications for the future? If I'm on the Committee, I'm starting to wonder if I want to jack around with the bowls at all starting in 2026. Just announce your 2026 schedule and see if the Rose or any other major bowl really wants to go up against a CFP playoff game. First round and quarterfinals on home sites, Semis and Final are all 3 bid out every year. That might not be the most likely outcome today, but if the Rose doesn't back down then it could become the most likely outcome Thursday.

Maybe it's a bit of a short term pain, but it would break the backs of all the bowls eventually, taking out 6 groups that often have their own agenda and can be at odds with all the Commissioners and Presidents at times.

In reality, maybe a divorce between the Playoff and the bowls would be better for the sport long term. They've tried to work together but the two have agendas that aren't compatible. In the current format, we have the Rose AND the Sugar that decided they wanted New Year's Day (January 2 when NYD is on a Sunday) to themselves and the CFP was stuck having to work around it. The Rose Bowl is getting a lot of grief but let's be honest, none of the NY6 or any major bowl really wants their bowl significantly away from New Year's Day as the CFP is proposing. The Rose Bowl is the only one with the guts to publicly stick up for themselves but I guarantee you the Orange and Sugar want what the Rose says they want too in terms of dates and rounds.

I still don't know how the university Presidents are OK with three Playoff rounds in January. They have long been known to resist expansion of football into "second semester". It's one thing for them to go with the four team, "plus one", that's just an additional week after New Year's Day. This is two extra weeks after NYD and four teams. Most commissioners probably don't have universities to run. Kevin Warren never worked for a university (his executive experience before the Big Ten was in the NFL). Kliavkoff also is a business man, not a university man. So is Yormark. These people don't give a crap about the academic side of college sports, they're just looking at dollar signs. It's the Presidents that have to say enough is enough.

Pushing the sport into another semester was always a BS argument. It was never a real reason, just an excuse. Its only 4 schools and basketball and some other sports have all schools cross semesters.

(11-30-2022 08:54 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(11-30-2022 07:36 AM)schmolik Wrote:  In reality, maybe a divorce between the Playoff and the bowls would be better for the sport long term. They've tried to work together but the two have agendas that aren't compatible. In the current format, we have the Rose AND the Sugar that decided they wanted New Year's Day (January 2 when NYD is on a Sunday) to themselves and the CFP was stuck having to work around it. The Rose Bowl is getting a lot of grief but let's be honest, none of the NY6 or any major bowl really wants their bowl significantly away from New Year's Day as the CFP is proposing. The Rose Bowl is the only one with the guts to publicly stick up for themselves but I guarantee you the Orange and Sugar want what the Rose says they want too in terms of dates and rounds.

I still don't know how the university Presidents are OK with three Playoff rounds in January. They have long been known to resist expansion of football into "second semester". It's one thing for them to go with the four team, "plus one", that's just an additional week after New Year's Day. This is two extra weeks after NYD and four teams. Most commissioners probably don't have universities to run. Kevin Warren never worked for a university (his executive experience before the Big Ten was in the NFL). Kliavkoff also is a business man, not a university man. So is Yormark. These people don't give a crap about the academic side of college sports, they're just looking at dollar signs. It's the Presidents that have to say enough is enough.

It is mind boggling, but then again, I think the Presidents want to distance the school from the athletic department and have it run as its own corporate entity. The players need to unionize and collectively bargain. I just don't think the Presidents want to have a large hand in that as they deliniate more of the work to their directors and business people while collecting a fat paycheck.

That's actually a fair point. Schools obviously want to take in the athletic money, but they're not necessarily keen to directly pay out money to athletes. Hence, I think schools will take today's NIL structure 100 times out of a 100 over any type of direct payments to players. If there's, say, some type of compensation for players participating in the playoff, then the colleges don't want to get mixed up in paying those players directly and instead have it paid by a third party (like a bowl). So, you could argue that the bowls (or some other third party organization) would serve a purpose as the middleman that can provide NIL payments.

(11-30-2022 11:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-30-2022 07:36 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 03:48 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  There's a whole lot of drama going on here, but it's just for 2 years. It will almost certainly get punted. The big drama will play out starting in 2026...which they should start talking about the day after they get 24/25 sorted.

I wonder if the Rose isn't causing themselves and also all the other bowls needless complications for the future? If I'm on the Committee, I'm starting to wonder if I want to jack around with the bowls at all starting in 2026. Just announce your 2026 schedule and see if the Rose or any other major bowl really wants to go up against a CFP playoff game. First round and quarterfinals on home sites, Semis and Final are all 3 bid out every year. That might not be the most likely outcome today, but if the Rose doesn't back down then it could become the most likely outcome Thursday.

Maybe it's a bit of a short term pain, but it would break the backs of all the bowls eventually, taking out 6 groups that often have their own agenda and can be at odds with all the Commissioners and Presidents at times.

In reality, maybe a divorce between the Playoff and the bowls would be better for the sport long term. They've tried to work together but the two have agendas that aren't compatible. In the current format, we have the Rose AND the Sugar that decided they wanted New Year's Day (January 2 when NYD is on a Sunday) to themselves and the CFP was stuck having to work around it. The Rose Bowl is getting a lot of grief but let's be honest, none of the NY6 or any major bowl really wants their bowl significantly away from New Year's Day as the CFP is proposing. The Rose Bowl is the only one with the guts to publicly stick up for themselves but I guarantee you the Orange and Sugar want what the Rose says they want too in terms of dates and rounds.

I still don't know how the university Presidents are OK with three Playoff rounds in January. They have long been known to resist expansion of football into "second semester". It's one thing for them to go with the four team, "plus one", that's just an additional week after New Year's Day. This is two extra weeks after NYD and four teams. Most commissioners probably don't have universities to run. Kevin Warren never worked for a university (his executive experience before the Big Ten was in the NFL). Kliavkoff also is a business man, not a university man. So is Yormark. These people don't give a crap about the academic side of college sports, they're just looking at dollar signs. It's the Presidents that have to say enough is enough.

Pushing the sport into another semester was always a BS argument. It was never a real reason, just an excuse. Its only 4 schools and basketball and some other sports have all schools cross semesters.

Agreed. No one should have ever taken that argument seriously.

(11-30-2022 12:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-30-2022 08:54 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(11-30-2022 07:36 AM)schmolik Wrote:  In reality, maybe a divorce between the Playoff and the bowls would be better for the sport long term. They've tried to work together but the two have agendas that aren't compatible. In the current format, we have the Rose AND the Sugar that decided they wanted New Year's Day (January 2 when NYD is on a Sunday) to themselves and the CFP was stuck having to work around it. The Rose Bowl is getting a lot of grief but let's be honest, none of the NY6 or any major bowl really wants their bowl significantly away from New Year's Day as the CFP is proposing. The Rose Bowl is the only one with the guts to publicly stick up for themselves but I guarantee you the Orange and Sugar want what the Rose says they want too in terms of dates and rounds.

I still don't know how the university Presidents are OK with three Playoff rounds in January. They have long been known to resist expansion of football into "second semester". It's one thing for them to go with the four team, "plus one", that's just an additional week after New Year's Day. This is two extra weeks after NYD and four teams. Most commissioners probably don't have universities to run. Kevin Warren never worked for a university (his executive experience before the Big Ten was in the NFL). Kliavkoff also is a business man, not a university man. So is Yormark. These people don't give a crap about the academic side of college sports, they're just looking at dollar signs. It's the Presidents that have to say enough is enough.

It is mind boggling, but then again, I think the Presidents want to distance the school from the athletic department and have it run as its own corporate entity. The players need to unionize and collectively bargain. I just don't think the Presidents want to have a large hand in that as they deliniate more of the work to their directors and business people while collecting a fat paycheck.

That's actually a fair point. Schools obviously want to take in the athletic money, but they're not necessarily keen to directly pay out money to athletes. Hence, I think schools will take today's NIL structure 100 times out of a 100 over any type of direct payments to players. If there's, say, some type of compensation for players participating in the playoff, then the colleges don't want to get mixed up in paying those players directly and instead have it paid by a third party (like a bowl). So, you could argue that the bowls (or some other third party organization) would serve a purpose as the middleman that can provide NIL payments.

The last thing they want is unions and strikes.

Cal is having trouble with that and their grad students.

https://www.democracynow.org/2022/11/30/...nt_workers

(11-30-2022 08:54 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(11-30-2022 07:36 AM)schmolik Wrote:  In reality, maybe a divorce between the Playoff and the bowls would be better for the sport long term. They've tried to work together but the two have agendas that aren't compatible. In the current format, we have the Rose AND the Sugar that decided they wanted New Year's Day (January 2 when NYD is on a Sunday) to themselves and the CFP was stuck having to work around it. The Rose Bowl is getting a lot of grief but let's be honest, none of the NY6 or any major bowl really wants their bowl significantly away from New Year's Day as the CFP is proposing. The Rose Bowl is the only one with the guts to publicly stick up for themselves but I guarantee you the Orange and Sugar want what the Rose says they want too in terms of dates and rounds.

I still don't know how the university Presidents are OK with three Playoff rounds in January. They have long been known to resist expansion of football into "second semester". It's one thing for them to go with the four team, "plus one", that's just an additional week after New Year's Day. This is two extra weeks after NYD and four teams. Most commissioners probably don't have universities to run. Kevin Warren never worked for a university (his executive experience before the Big Ten was in the NFL). Kliavkoff also is a business man, not a university man. So is Yormark. These people don't give a crap about the academic side of college sports, they're just looking at dollar signs. It's the Presidents that have to say enough is enough.

It is mind boggling, but then again, I think the Presidents want to distance the school from the athletic department and have it run as its own corporate entity. The players need to unionize and collectively bargain. I just don't think the Presidents want to have a large hand in that as they deliniate more of the work to their directors and business people while collecting a fat paycheck.

So they can work half as hard for a whole lot more pay? Good luck getting the SEC to let that happen. All Unions have done is priced companies into offshoring everything.

So, did the deadline come and go with no decision? Or do they have until midnight? Or is it not really a deadline at all?

(11-30-2022 07:45 PM)ken d Wrote:  So, did the deadline come and go with no decision? Or do they have until midnight? Or is it not really a deadline at all?

What was the ultimatum even? Agree to two years as a quarterfinal and hope for the best OR keep two years as a contract bowl and… hope for the best?

(11-30-2022 07:45 PM)ken d Wrote:  So, did the deadline come and go with no decision? Or do they have until midnight? Or is it not really a deadline at all?

When Heather Dinich wrote the article, can anyone confirm which Wednesday on the calendar she was looking at?

No cities need two years to plan a football game, especially when they know they have a game and just need to pick a date. The RB is in no rush. They're going to hold out as long possible. I'm just not sure what the issue is. There is not going to be a consolation game in Pasadena on NYD.

(11-30-2022 09:10 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  No cities need two years to plan a football game, especially when they know they have a game and just need to pick a date. The RB is in no rush. They're going to hold out as long possible. I'm just not sure what the issue is. There is not going to be a consolation game in Pasadena on NYD.

The cities hosting the finals need to reserve things like hotel rooms and make sure there isn't a big convention or other conflict.

(11-30-2022 09:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-30-2022 09:10 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  No cities need two years to plan a football game, especially when they know they have a game and just need to pick a date. The RB is in no rush. They're going to hold out as long possible. I'm just not sure what the issue is. There is not going to be a consolation game in Pasadena on NYD.

The cities hosting the finals need to reserve things like hotel rooms and make sure there isn't a big convention or other conflict.

I think the dates are pretty much set to be honest. It's already been reported the RB will host QFs those two years. That means everything else already falls in place. Thursday Friday Semis prior to MLK weekend and Monday following NFL Divisional weekend.

Nobody is planning for 26-27' at the moment but they need a framework in place for the RB to be comfortable.

I'm past tired of the Rose Bowl causing problems with the college football postseason. They've been a thorn in the side of progress as long as I've been a fan, and it needs to end. Their traditions will soon be a farce anyway with Southern Cal & UCLA heading to the B1G, and I think the rest of college football should move on from "the Grandaddy of them all". Honor the existing contracts but replace the Rose Bowl from 2026 on with a more cooperative bowl in a destination city.

The Rose Bowl is on board and the CFP is set to expand to 12 teams in 2024:

https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/15...Kv360sAAAA

(11-30-2022 09:33 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  I'm past tired of the Rose Bowl causing problems with the college football postseason. They've been a thorn in the side of progress as long as I've been a fan, and it needs to end. Their traditions will soon be a farce anyway with Southern Cal & UCLA heading to the B1G, and I think the rest of college football should move on from "the Grandaddy of them all". Honor the existing contracts but replace the Rose Bowl from 2026 on with a more cooperative bowl in a destination city.

Like Inglewood