OT: Playoff Expansion Update

[rutgersguy1]

EDIT: 11/30/22. This is an old thread that has been bumped by another poster with additional news that the playoffs will expand to 12.



Playoff expansion update. Sounds like it could get done in time for 2024 and it will likely be 12 if it does. 8 team would only involve the NY6 bowls and ESPN already owns the rights to those so it wouldn't be enough to get more money. Expansion to 12 gets out that issue. Also sounds like ESPN would have right of first refusal and chance to give the best offer but no need for extension of the contract, which is what I always found strange when it was brought up reporters. Why would a new package of games lead to an extension of a contract. You could line up the new package deal to coincide with the current playoff deal and then in 2025-26 have it all come out to bid. I hope they can get it done for the 2024 season.

Column: 8 won't be enough for the College Football Playoff

When it comes to College Football Playoff expansion, the odds are stacked against eight ever being enough.

apnews.com

The Associated Press spoke with several people involved with or familiar with expansion talks before and after last week’s CFP management committee meeting in Illinois to gauge where things stand and where they are heading. Most of the people spoke only on condition of anonymity to allow executive director Bill Hancock to be the sole public voice for the closely watched process.

Two things are clear: A 12-team playoff is still the most likely outcome when the event expands. And there is still a good amount of optimism that consensus can be reached in time to implement a new format for the 2024 season.

“I’m confident we can,” a person involved in the discussions said.

An eight-team format could alleviate concerns about the length of the season and disruption of the academic calendar, but it is also fraught with issues — including a big one that could cost the CFP a shot at at hundreds of millions of dollars sooner rather than later:

While the playoff is thought of as a three-game event — two semifinals and the championship game — ESPN pays about $600 million per year for a seven-game package: the three that determine the national champion, plus four New Year’s Six bowls.

An eight-team playoff would fit within the existing seven-game structure, turning four bowl games that currently have no impact on the crowning of a national champion into four more valuable quarterfinals. The problem is that ESPN would not be contractually obligated to increase its rights fee to broadcast them, according to a person familiar with the agreement between ESPN and the CFP. (ESPN through a spokesman declined a request for comment by the AP.)

Because eight doesn’t create new games, there would be no way for the CFP to bring aboard new TV partners — and their millions — before the end of the contract with ESPN.

There has been concern that ESPN’s contract gives the network exclusivity to any new inventory before the deal expires, though CFP officials and those they consult with say that is not the case.

ESPN would get first crack at landing the new games, but the CFP would not be contractually bound to accept the network’s offer, according to multiple people familiar with the process.

If ESPN’s offer for the expanded playoff inventory for 2024 and ’25 was best, the CFP would be obligated to accept, but it wouldn’t prevent the new format from being brought to market after the original 12-year deal expires.

Hancock has said commissioners would have to agree within the next four months for a new playoff format to be implemented by 2024. The deadline is tied to the need to pick sites and dates for the ’24 and ’25 championship games.

Otherwise, expansion will come in 2026.

The clock is to ticking, but maybe that’s a good thing.

“Sometimes with these big sea change ideas,” that first person said, “it doesn’t happen until it has to happen.”

A few key characters standing in the way of 12-team College Football Playoff

The Alliance that began as an understandable objection to SEC/ESPN domination is starting to veer into undercutting its own self-interest.

sports.yahoo.com

The Alliance has somewhat cast ESPN as the bully and stood on the table for multiple media partners to buy into the next iteration of the playoff. But it’s understood that ESPN is likely to play ball with bringing in a second partner because it doesn’t want to lose everything when the current contract ends after the 2025 regular season. (Much like CBS did in fumbling the SEC by not playing ball in the short term and getting shut out.)

The College Football Playoff has been using two consultants to guide it through the process. The early projections for the expanded 11-game format are intriguing.
“I think, frankly, when we start taking a look at the numbers, the numbers are astronomical,” said one person involved in the process. "I think the presidents believe that we need to have an auction [for media rights]. I think it would be in our best interest to have at least two, three [or more] different groups bidding on this.”

The momentum for an eight-team playoff is dead, as the Associated Press’ Ralph Russo reported this week. The momentum for a 12-team event is coming, as soon as the crew of new commissioners stops stepping on each other’s toes and starts looking at common sense.

 

[Mufasa94]

I do not believe it is well thought out if the main reason for jumping to 12 is to avoid ESPN keeping control for a couple years if it were to go to 8.

Keep at 4 through the current contract and actually look at all the factors in time for the new contract(s).

 

[T2Kplus20]

I do not believe it is well thought out if the main reason for jumping to 12 is to avoid ESPN keeping control for a couple years if it were to go to 8.

Keep at 4 through the current contract and actually look at all the factors in time for the new contract(s).

Going to 12 is a stupid idea regardless of the details with ESPN.

 

[rutgersguy1]

I do not believe it is well thought out if the main reason for jumping to 12 is to avoid ESPN keeping control for a couple years if it were to go to 8.

Keep at 4 through the current contract and actually look at all the factors in time for the new contract(s).

I only posted snippets of the articles but that's not the only reason for issues with 8. SEC wants the same number of at large berths. Essentially they consider the current 4 team format to be 4 at large bids, in practice they're not all going to the same conference but it's viewed as 4 at large by them. So with 8 and guaranteed conference champs taking up 5 or 6 spots that means the number of at large bids shrinks in their view. With 12 that doesn't happen.

It's been said before and I've mentioned it here multiple times too, while most think the SEC would get all these at large bids but when it's been examined to the point from when the playoffs began it's actually the B10 who would gotten the most playoff teams over that time. So the B10 would probably want more at large bids too.

This vote needs near unanimity as well so a lot of parties need to be satisfied and 12 does that. I mentioned before maybe there will be some changes around the fringes of the 12 team playoff format that was originally released but a lot of stuff will probably be the same.

Also it's not just ESPN control for a few years, it's that ESPN wouldn't be obligated to pay more than what they already do if it's expanded to 8. So no extra money with an expansion to 8 until the contract expires. So you'd be expanding the playoff and getting no extra money for 5 years and certainly not maximizing revenue.

From the article:
While the issues with an eight-team format tied to the current ESPN contract go away after 2025, other sticking points persist, according to the AP interviews.

The current CFP allows any team to make the four-team playoff, making them effectively at-large berths. The SEC would not accept any fewer at-large spots in an eight-team expansion. Others see automatic bids for at least five or six conference champions as essential.

“The impediments to eight are still going to be there,” a person involved in the discussions said.

 

[WhiteBus]

I don't see any expansion until this contract runs out. I don't see the other conferences giving into the SEC demands so easily after poaching Texas and Oklahoma. There is no rush by the other conferences to do anything now

 

[rutgersguy1]

I don't see any expansion until this contract runs out. I don't see the other conferences giving into the SEC demands so easily after poaching Texas and Oklahoma. There is no rush by the other conferences to do anything now

Well I think there is an "urgency" so to speak if you're the ACC, PAC12 and G5. Any sort of expansion is a benefit to your constituents. It's 5 years off and do those guys want to be off and on shut out of the playoffs (especially the PAC12 and G5).

IMO the only hold up before was this idea put out by reporters that ESPN could keep the rights to an expansion AND would have the deal extended beyond 2026. I never understood that, it's a new package of games what does extension of the current contract have to do with anything. Now it makes more sense and that idea of needing to extend the contract with ESPN if the playoffs expanded seems out the window. So whether the current playoff expands or not, the contract comes up in 2026 for all the networks/media to bid on. So that's essentially status quo in that respect. But instead of worrying about being locked into ESPN exclusively beyond 2026 you can create a playoff that is more inclusive and allows groups (G5, PAC12, ACC) that potentially could be shut out fairly often to now get in.

More money and more inclusion without having to be exclusively tied to ESPN beyond 2026 IMO means maybe more than 50% chance it gets done in time for 2024 season. I kind of agree with the source of the article but we'll see.

 

[WhiteBus]

Well I think there is an "urgency" so to speak if you're the ACC, PAC12 and G5. Any sort of expansion is a benefit to your constituents. It's 5 years off and do those guys want to be off and on shut out of the playoffs (especially the PAC12 and G5).

IMO the only hold up before was this idea put out by reporters that ESPN could keep the rights to an expansion AND would have the deal extended beyond 2026. I never understood that, it's a new package of games what does extension of the current contract have to do with anything. Now it makes more sense and that idea of needing to extend the contract with ESPN if the playoffs expanded seems out the window. So whether the current playoff expands or not, the contract comes up in 2026 for all the networks/media to bid on. So that's essentially status quo in that respect. But instead of worrying about being locked into ESPN exclusively beyond 2026 you can create a playoff that is more inclusive and allows groups (G5, PAC12, ACC) that potentially could be shut out fairly often to now get in.

More money and more inclusion without having to be exclusively tied to ESPN beyond 2026 IMO means maybe more than 50% chance it gets done in time for 2024 season. I kind of agree with the source of the article but we'll see.

I don't see the ACC or PAC12 worried about being shut out at all. They are already on the commission. They aren't getting thrown off.
Agree that ESPN won't/shouldn't get any special deal or exclusive bargaining. It's also why they will back away from expanding early. They have a monopoly on the playoffs. Why risk losing a year or two. ESPN has to be worried about Fox stealing it during the next round.

 

[krup]

Well I think there is an "urgency" so to speak if you're the ACC, PAC12 and G5. Any sort of expansion is a benefit to your constituents. It's 5 years off and do those guys want to be off and on shut out of the playoffs (especially the PAC12 and G5).

IMO the only hold up before was this idea put out by reporters that ESPN could keep the rights to an expansion AND would have the deal extended beyond 2026. I never understood that, it's a new package of games what does extension of the current contract have to do with anything. Now it makes more sense and that idea of needing to extend the contract with ESPN if the playoffs expanded seems out the window. So whether the current playoff expands or not, the contract comes up in 2026 for all the networks/media to bid on. So that's essentially status quo in that respect. But instead of worrying about being locked into ESPN exclusively beyond 2026 you can create a playoff that is more inclusive and allows groups (G5, PAC12, ACC) that potentially could be shut out fairly often to now get in.

More money and more inclusion without having to be exclusively tied to ESPN beyond 2026 IMO means maybe more than 50% chance it gets done in time for 2024 season. I kind of agree with the source of the article but we'll see.

If they expand the playoff they expect to get more money for not only the new games but the old ones as well because the playoff has been a success.

For that to happen you have to work with ESPN. Well, and extension doesn’t have to be a part of that from the schools’ side but ESPN sure wants it.

If you look at all of the mid contract revisions that ESPN has done with the ACC and SEC due to expansion, in return for agreeing to pay the going rate for the new teams ESPN has always gotten an extension out of it.

That strategy actually had a direct effect on RU because RU’s initial B1G conference payouts were particularly low because Delaney didn’t want to get paid more after adding Rutgers and Maryland if it meant a longer wait until the B1G deals hit the open market.

 

[rutgersguy1]

I don't see the ACC or PAC12 worried about being shut out at all. They are already on the commission. They aren't getting thrown off.
Agree that ESPN won't/shouldn't get any special deal or exclusive bargaining. It's also why they will back away from expanding early. They have a monopoly on the playoffs. Why risk losing a year or two. ESPN has to be worried about Fox stealing it during the next round.

I'm not talking about ACC/PAC 12 being thrown off the commission I'm talking about them (and the G5) being shut out of the playoff regularly (specifically the G5 and PAC12). An expansion helps all of them and they don't have to wait 5 years for it. It helps the B10 too in the fact that they would have been the conference with the most teams in a 12 team playoff from when the playoffs started. Most think it's the SEC but it's not. Both conferences benefit, not just the SEC.

ESPN is entitled to have first crack at the new package of games in a 12 team playoff and if they bid the highest they can have it all. That's fine IMO. That would be essentially status quo like the 4 teams now. But from the CFP's committees standpoint you've just gotten a lot more money and inclusion for all your membership.

IMO the only issue was ESPN having it all beyond 2026...which all these reporters kept writing. Expansion meant extension and that was always strange to me. Now it seems like extension is not tied to expansion, so there really shouldn't be to many impediments that hold it back. Line it all up for 2026 for bid to all the media. If ESPN has the expanded playoffs til 2026 (but are paying more money for the extra games) so be it, they have that exclusivity now so nothing changes in that respect. Main thing is it still all comes up in 2026 and then other partners can get involved.

 

[rutgersguy1]

If they expand the playoff they expect to get more money for not only the new games but the old ones as well because the playoff has been a success.

For that to happen you have to work with ESPN. Well, and extension doesn’t have to be a part of that from the schools’ side but ESPN sure wants it.

If you look at all of the mid contract revisions that ESPN has done with the ACC and SEC due to expansion, in return for agreeing to pay the going rate for the new teams ESPN has always gotten an extension out of it.

That strategy actually had a direct effect on RU because RU’s initial B1G conference payouts were particularly low because Delaney didn’t want to get paid more after adding Rutgers and Maryland if it meant a longer wait until the B1G deals hit the open market.

I don't know about that but I think the CFP committee probably could set aside getting more money for the old games for 5 years and just take in the extra money for the new games for now. That can be waited on until 2026 IMO. No need to extend beyond 2026 unless other partners beyond ESPN are involved. You can deal with ESPN being the exclusive rights holder of an expanded playoff up to 2026 as long as they're paying more money for the new package of games but I wouldn't go beyond that.

Getting other partners involved in the playoffs after 2026 is also crucial to the appeal of all the conferences' regular season packages to a broader set of potential bidders.

 

[WhiteBus]

I'm not taking about ACC/PAC 12 being thrown off the commission I'm talking about them (and the G5) being shut out of the playoff regularly (specifically the G5 and PAC12). An expansion helps all of them and they don't have to wait 5 years for it. It helps the B10 too in the fact that they would have been the conference with the most teams in a 12 team playoff from when the playoffs started. Most think it's the SEC but it's not. Both conferences benefit, not just the SEC.

ESPN is entitled to have first crack at the new package of games in a 12 team playoff and if they bid the highest they can have it all. That's fine IMO. That would be essentially status quo like the 4 teams now. But from the CFP's committees standpoint you've just gotten a lot more money and inclusion for all your membership.

IMO the only issue was ESPN having it all beyond 2026...which all these reporters kept writing. Expansion meant extension and that was always strange to me. Now it seems like extension is not tied to expansion, so there really shouldn't be to many impediments that hold it back. Line it all up for 2026 for bid to all the media. If ESPN has the expanded playoffs til 2026 (but are paying more money for the extra games) so be it, they have that exclusivity now so nothing changes in that respect. Main thing is it still all comes up in 2026 and then other partners can get involved.

How is giving ESPN first shot at the new package good for the conferences? Like all sports contracts they need to be bid on. Most times it's the networks get one chance at it. Submitting a blind bid and best bid takes it.
Going to 12 doesn't necessarily help the ACC and PAC 12. Yes they will have a guaranteed spot but the money split just tripled. 12 favors the SEC the most. They can easily get 4 teams into the playoffs every year. Last year Clemson would have been the only ACC team in the playoffs.

 

[Steve91562]

Twelve team play off will absolutely kill the importance of the regular season. Every year you'll have multiple two loss and occasionally three loss teams in the top 12. Just go back and look at rankings at the end of the year before bowl season.

It would also probably eventually kill ND's association with the ACC. With a 12 team playoff ND would have a decent chance of being in the playoffs every years. They wouldn't need bowl affiliations. They could stick their olympics and BB with the BE.

 

[rutgersguy1]

How is giving ESPN first shot at the new package good for the conferences? Like all sports contracts they need to be bid on. Most times it's the networks get one chance at it. Submitting a blind bid and best bid takes it.
Going to 12 doesn't necessarily help the ACC and PAC 12. Yes they will have a guaranteed spot but the money split just tripled. 12 favors the SEC the most. They can easily get 4 teams into the playoffs every year. Last year Clemson would have been the only ACC team in the playoffs.

ESPN having first shot isn't what's good for the conferences, the expansion is specifically the conferences often at threat of being left out.

I'm saying ESPN having first shot is inconsequential as long as they're paying the most (btw others can still bid on them though but ESPN gets first crack to bid most) for those new set of games AND it's only up til 2026. IMO the biggest issue was supposedly having to extend beyond 2026 if the playoffs expanded. But that seems to be unfounded reporting by the media.

ESPN has it all now til 2026 so it wouldn't be any different. But in this case though everyone would be getting more money and there's inclusion for parties that are continually in danger of being left out of the playoffs.

As far as the PAC12/ACC only getting 1 team yea that's likely often true. But the lions share of playoff money split will be off the top. There maybe be some extra bumps of money to a conference for the extra teams that make the playoffs but imo that's negligible to the PAC12/ACC/G5 in the whole scheme of things and on balance they still benefit a lot more.

And like I said don't assume it's always the SEC that gets more. I mentioned the B10 would've had the most teams in a 12 team playoff from the time these playoffs first started. Look at this year, B10 could probably get as many if not more. I tend to think it could be back and forth over time with somewhat of an advantage to the SEC with Texas/OU added. Again though on balance it's still beneficial to the B10.

 

[WhiteBus]

ESPN having first shot isn't what's good for the conferences, the expansion is specifically the conferences often at threat of being left out.

I'm saying ESPN having first shot is inconsequential as long as they're paying the most (btw others can still bid on them though but ESPN gets first crack to bid most) for those new set of games AND it's only up til 2026. IMO the biggest issue was supposedly having to extend beyond 2026 if the playoffs expanded. But that seems to be unfounded reporting by the media.

ESPN has it all now til 2026 so it wouldn't be any different. But in this case though everyone would be getting more money and there's inclusion for parties that are continually in danger of being left out of the playoffs.

As far as the PAC12/ACC only getting 1 team yea that's likely often true. But the lions share of playoff money split will be off the top. There maybe be some extra bumps of money to a conference for the extra teams that make the playoffs but imo that's negligible to the PAC12/ACC/G5 in the whole scheme of things and on balance they still benefit a lot more.

And like I said don't assume it's always the SEC that gets more. I mentioned the B10 would've had the most teams in a 12 team playoff from the time these playoffs first started. Look at this year, B10 could probably get as many if not more. I tend to think it could be back and forth over time with somewhat of an advantage to the SEC with Texas/OU added. Again though on balance it's still beneficial to the B10.

You can assume the SEC is always going to get more teams then they are supposed to get because of ESPN. They promote the SEC like it's the only worthy conference in college. Watch College GameDay, listen to Feinbaum. ESPN and the SEC are the ones leading the charge on this. Why should any other conference trust them?

 

[Hardslider21]

They have to let the existing deal run out. Only way to make more money is competition among other networks/platforms. Go to 8 if ESPN wants, they pay $0 extra.

 

[rutgersguy1]

You can assume the SEC is always going to get more teams then they are supposed to get because of ESPN. They promote the SEC like it's the only worthy conference in college. Watch College GameDay, listen to Feinbaum. ESPN and the SEC are the ones leading the charge on this. Why should any other conference trust them?

Well the CFP rankings are made by people from all over the past and present college football world, not just the SEC or ESPN. That's about as fair as you're going to get.

 

[rutgersguy1]

They have to let the existing deal run out. Only way to make more money is competition among other networks/platforms. Go to 8 if ESPN wants, they pay $0 extra.

It's not related. The existing deal can still run out with expansion that's the point. No extension necessary which was the originally reported months ago and seems to be unfounded now. You can get more money and more inclusion and ESPN doesn't necessarily get the new games but if they do it doesn't mean it will go beyond 2026. So it's status quo plus really.

 

[WhiteBus]

Well the CFP rankings are made by people from all over the past and present college football world, not just the SEC or ESPN. That's about as fair as you're going to get.

You don't think ESPN influences the voters with all their pro SEC coverage?

 

[rutgersguy1]

You don't think ESPN influences the voters with all their pro SEC coverage?

There's always going to be influence by media. You can't do anything about that. Like I said it's about as fair as you can get having people from all over the college landscape past and present trying to make consensus judgements.

 

[NickRU714]

Well the CFP rankings are made by people from all over the past and present college football world, not just the SEC or ESPN. That's about as fair as you're going to get.

Never going to change people minds.

If you even hit "benefits SEC and/or ESPN" everyone loses their minds.
And completely ignores how much it would also benefit the BIG.

Potentially 4 BIG teams in the Top 12 by years end?
No way. Can't have 12 CFP because maybe the SEC gets 2 or 3 teams in.


Can't decide which saying makes more sense:
"Throw out the baby with the bathwater" or "Cut off your nose to spite your face"

 

[NickRU714]

You don't think ESPN influences the voters with all their pro SEC coverage?

Back to the old BCS computers?
No more biased human involvement?

Works for me.

 

[rutgersguy1]

Back to the old BCS computers?
No more biased human involvement?

Works for me.

SEC programmer, B10 programmer, ACC programmer etc... 😉 😂 Or maybe we need some AI involved lol.

 

[krup]

ESPN having first shot isn't what's good for the conferences, the expansion is specifically the conferences often at threat of being left out.

I'm saying ESPN having first shot is inconsequential as long as they're paying the most (btw others can still bid on them though but ESPN gets first crack to bid most) for those new set of games AND it's only up til 2026. IMO the biggest issue was supposedly having to extend beyond 2026 if the playoffs expanded. But that seems to be unfounded reporting by the media.

ESPN has it all now til 2026 so it wouldn't be any different. But in this case though everyone would be getting more money and there's inclusion for parties that are continually in danger of being left out of the playoffs.

As far as the PAC12/ACC only getting 1 team yea that's likely often true. But the lions share of playoff money split will be off the top. There maybe be some extra bumps of money to a conference for the extra teams that make the playoffs but imo that's negligible to the PAC12/ACC/G5 in the whole scheme of things and on balance they still benefit a lot more.

And like I said don't assume it's always the SEC that gets more. I mentioned the B10 would've had the most teams in a 12 team playoff from the time these playoffs first started. Look at this year, B10 could probably get as many if not more. I tend to think it could be back and forth over time with somewhat of an advantage to the SEC with Texas/OU added. Again though on balance it's still beneficial to the B10.

Are we sure that ESPN would have the ability to keep the contract from hitting the market, or is the right to refusal something where the contract goes to bid on the open market, but ESPN has the right to keep the contract by matching the highest bid?

 

[rutgersguy1]

Are we sure that ESPN would have the ability to keep the contract from hitting the market, or is the right to refusal something where the contract goes to bid on the open market, but ESPN has the right to keep the contract by matching the highest bid?

As long it's doesn't have to be extended beyond 2026 it doesn't really matter. It's essentially out to bid if they have to match the highest offer but you're stuck with ESPN til 2026 but you are now too so it makes no difference. Except you're getting more money and more inclusion and in 2026 you put all out to bid just as you would if you didn't expand. Status quo plus.

If other networks can outbid ESPN then great but if not and it's just ESPN at the highest price so be it, as long as it's not beyond 2026 and that seems to be the case from what was written in the article.

From the article and posted in the OP:

There has been concern that ESPN’s contract gives the network exclusivity to any new inventory before the deal expires, though CFP officials and those they consult with say that is not the case.

ESPN would get first crack at landing the new games, but the CFP would not be contractually bound to accept the network’s offer, according to multiple people familiar with the process.

If ESPN’s offer for the expanded playoff inventory for 2024 and ’25 was best, the CFP would be obligated to accept, but it wouldn’t prevent the new format from being brought to market after the original 12-year deal expires.

 

[RUTGERS95]

I just want amazon to come in and bid and take away from espn. I just want espn to have far less influence

 

[rutgersguy1]

I just want amazon to come in and bid and take away from espn. I just want espn to have far less influence

Exclusive streaming rights maybe some time in the future is possible like they do with the NFL but not sure much beyond that, at least not for awhile.

I think Fox for sure will at least come in for a piece of the playoffs in 2026 and maybe for these extra games til 2026 if they bid high enough. NBC/CBS maybe too in 2026 for a piece even if not the highest price but just to get more exposure. Then maybe those networks get some interest in the “lesser” conferences (PAC12/B12) regular season packages.

 

[rutgersron]

I don't see any expansion until this contract runs out. I don't see the other conferences giving into the SEC demands so easily after poaching Texas and Oklahoma. There is no rush by the other conferences to do anything now

Plus the Notre Dame demand. With this format, they will never join a conference yet enjoy all the benefits.

 

[rutgersguy1]

ND joining a conference isn’t related to playoff access only imo and probably not realistically because they likely would always be afforded a chance through at large bids.

ND joining a conference would more likely be a result of the destabilization of the ACC by realignment. Join the ACC to possibly stabilize it or the B10 along with ACC teams. That really doesn’t have a chance to happen until he ACC is near the end of its GOR in the mid 2030s.

 

[krup]

ND joining a conference isn’t related to playoff access only imo and probably not realistically because they likely would always be afforded a chance through at large bids.

ND joining a conference would more likely be a result of the destabilization of the ACC by realignment. Join the ACC to possibly stabilize it or the B10 along with ACC teams. That really doesn’t have a chance to happen until he ACC is near the end of its GOR in the mid 2030s.

Yes, people don’t seem to realize that along with playoff access ND had a few big problems that hybrid membership with the ACC solved.

They needed decent bowl access when they weren’t a NYD bowl level team, more importantly they needed help with the Oct/Nov scheduling when other schools are playing conference games (I think a big driver of this was people very unhappy that they played consecutive Oct home games one year against Western Michigan and Tulsa. NBC couldn’t have been too happy either) and they needed to always have a good home for their non-football sports.

If the ACC hadn’t buckled and offered them hybrid membership, ND might have been forced to join a conference. Now that ND has that arrangement, they have no need to.

 

[RUevolution36]

I just want amazon to come in and bid and take away from espn. I just want espn to have far less influence

you clearly don't pay attention to the disaster that streaming sports broadcasting is.

 

[lloyde dobler]

Twelve team play off will absolutely kill the importance of the regular season. Every year you'll have multiple two loss and occasionally three loss teams in the top 12. Just go back and look at rankings at the end of the year before bowl season.

It would also probably eventually kill ND's association with the ACC. With a 12 team playoff ND would have a decent chance of being in the playoffs every years. They wouldn't need bowl affiliations. They could stick their olympics and BB with the BE.

The regular season is obviously important, but is it a problem that after the second weekend of October, that there are only 24 teams left that are either P5 with 2 losses or less and G5 with one or less? And think of some of those schools that are still among the 24… like Wake, BC, NC State.

You don’t want to make the regular season meaningless, but you also don’t want to make it too restrictive, either. I don’t know what the solution is, but they’ll ultimately be motivated by money, which will almost certainly mean 12 in the end. And the thing is, will those last four teams ever make a run in the playoffs?

 

[WhiteBus]

Exclusive streaming rights maybe some time in the future is possible like they do with the NFL but not sure much beyond that, at least not for awhile.

I think Fox for sure will at least come in for a piece of the playoffs in 2026 and maybe for these extra games til 2026 if they bid high enough. NBC/CBS maybe too in 2026 for a piece even if not the highest price but just to get more exposure. Then maybe those networks get some interest in the “lesser” conferences (PAC12/B12) regular season packages.

Why do you think Fox will come in for just a piece? They have the $$ to take the whole package.

 

[WhichReligionIsRight]

Yes, people don’t seem to realize that along with playoff access ND had a few big problems that hybrid membership with the ACC solved.

They needed decent bowl access when they weren’t a NYD bowl level team, more importantly they needed help with the Oct/Nov scheduling when other schools are playing conference games (I think a big driver of this was people very unhappy that they played consecutive Oct home games one year against Western Michigan and Tulsa. NBC couldn’t have been too happy either) and they needed to always have a good home for their non-football sports.

If the ACC hadn’t buckled and offered them hybrid membership, ND might have been forced to join a conference. Now that ND has that arrangement, they have no need to.

ND also helped the ACC maintain/improve their bowl slots. So I think it works both ways. However, any discussion of bowl slots just makes me want to see the playoffs expanded. I already accept that ND is always going to be over-ranked and will always get special status. I don't like it, but it is what it is.

 

[WhichReligionIsRight]

My most fervent hope for the playoffs is they get expanded enough to get rid of the conference championships. Give the P4 conferences two automatic slots each, one or two for the Big XII, and one or two for the G5/independents. Plus, some at large bids. Yes, that's more than 12. Good. Make it 16 or 24.

 

[rutgersguy1]

Why do you think Fox will come in for just a piece? They have the $$ to take the whole package.

Well I don't know how expensive it will be when it goes to 12 and then also adjusted for inflation (even though I realize most of these deals have 5% annual bumps IIRC) so that might be a lot to digest for any company (even Disney) when the whole shebang is up for grabs not just a piece.

Plus for the same reasons, you don't want to have it all at ESPN, don't think it's ideal to have it all at Fox. It's best for everyone (the conferences) if it's split, even if it may not fully maximize value. If Fox has a piece, ESPN has a piece and maybe NBC/CBS have a piece that bumps up interest for potential bids for the regular season packages for all the power conferences higher status on down. It's also more exposure/promotion across multiple media partners. So while you may not maximize value fully by splitting you could be making it up and then some with the additional interest of potential bidders for regular season conference packages.

The NFL is smart like that. All the networks have a piece of their playoffs and all also have interest and pieces in their regular season packages too. Follow that successful model.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

The perennial top programs (and TV) really really really want those BYE weeks.

8 or 16.. no freaking BYES !

(or at least this.. if you are not champion of your conference then you cannot get a BYE)

 

[fsg2]

My most fervent hope for the playoffs is they get expanded enough to get rid of the conference championships. Give the P4 conferences two automatic slots each, one or two for the Big XII, and one or two for the G5/independents. Plus, some at large bids. Yes, that's more than 12. Good. Make it 16 or 24.

This idea is still terrible.

 

[rutgersguy1]

My most fervent hope for the playoffs is they get expanded enough to get rid of the conference championships. Give the P4 conferences two automatic slots each, one or two for the Big XII, and one or two for the G5/independents. Plus, some at large bids. Yes, that's more than 12. Good. Make it 16 or 24.

Conference championship games are a money maker for the conferences, not likely you'd see them eliminated.

The perennial top programs (and TV) really really really want those BYE weeks.

8 or 16.. no freaking BYES !

(or at least this.. if you are not champion of your conference then you cannot get a BYE)

I tend to think they do want at least try to limit the number of games played by the athletes. 16 is probably a goal. 12 regular season, 1 conf champ, 4 playoff is 17 max for a team and in most instances would probably be 16.

The top 4 and likely conference champs would have gotten a bye and the bottom seeds probably not have played a conf champ game if they ended up making a run to the national title. Most likely it would be the conf champ losers who would have the potential to be playing 17 games if they made a run. So in practice to potentially play 17, I think that would be a B10/SEC conf champ loser or G5 champion making a run to the title game.

I was okay with 8 before the news of 12 was released months ago. Now personally, I think 12 is right and satisfies most requirements from all parties as best as possible.

 

[rutgersguy1]

Figuring out when to play first round games and the logistics and competitive balance issues. Also 8 doesn't seem completely out the window yet depending on how that goes. They don't want the games to be too close to the conf champ games because it's an unfair advantage to teams that didn't play in them to have the extra time off. They also don't want it too late because then they might run into Saturday NFL games late in the season. They could move them to primetime week night games. Also mentioned that with Amazon taking over exclusively the NFL's Thursday night package in 2022 that the NFL's Saturday games could move to the NFL network leaving room for Fox/ESPN to take them even on a Saturday.

CFP expansion: Bump Army-Navy or go head-to-head with NFL?

If a 12-team format is the future of the College Football Playoff —- and odds are that it still is despite a recent detour on the road to expansion — among the many details that need to be worked out is when it would start.

apnews.com

Snippet from the article:

There are two choices that will be considered by the administrators who make up the CFP management committee:

— Hold the first round the second weekend of December, which would create what some members of the committee believe is an unfair advantage for playoff teams that don’t play conference championship games while also bumping into what has become the traditional standalone date for the Army-Navy game.

Or ...

— Play the third week of December and deal with the possibility of scheduling the playoff around or against NFL games.

“That’s part of what we’re trying to figure out, just the sequencing of when these games would be played and in what order,” Atlantic Coast Conference Commissioner Jim Phillips told AP this week, adding that the safety of teams playing two high-stakes games in a row was a factor.” So we have to pay careful attention to that, not only the number of games, but how they are sequenced.”

Instead of moving forward on a 12-team model as many involved hoped would be the case by now, the committee is sorting through the pros and cons of an eight-team format.

With eight teams, there are no games that need to be played in mid-December, eliminating altogether those issues as well as conflicts with final exams at many schools, and making that number more appealing to some committee members.

Still, there are obstacles to eight that make expansion to 12 more likely .

 

[anon_ivydyf0amkzay]

I still can’t believe CBS was stupid enough to lose out on the SEC on CBS…a move they will regret big time very soon.