At some point, the SEC has gotten so big that it has out kicked its coverage.
While the Southeastern US has grown in terms of population, in terms of economic power, it remains the poorest region in the country. As such, its ability to demand anything has hit a brick wall.
What the SEC hopes is that ESPN can somehow strong arm the other conferences into caving in, but I predict that the other conferences will go to other larger, more powerful entities (i.e., Google (via YouTube), Amazon, Netflix, etc., and obtain their own sweetheart deals. Disney is bleeding money and subscribers, so its leverage is weakening, not strengthening.
For added measure, the other conferences could request government action; the changes of that happening are not zero (probably 50/50).
Automatic Qualifiers: Big Ten and ACC want 5+1+6, the other 8 have indicated that they would vote for 6+6
Bowls: I assume this is the Big Ten and Pac-12 wanting Rose Bowl involvement
Scheduling: This seems related to bowls, so probably Big Ten and Pac-12. Per Mandel, the ACC is using this to argue for 8 teams.
Since the SEC needs this the least, I might have expected them to hold out for all-at-large, but they seem rather cooperative.
Reading between the lines, it appears the compromise theyâve reached on TV is that ESPN will get it until 2026 but it will go to the market after that (as opposed to ESPN getting a pre-emptive extension).
Expansion is dead until 2025. If they canât agree on these issues now, they will not agree in the next two year. As such, the SEC, will organize a coalition of the willing including the big12, pac12 and G5 conference to formulate a path forward for the next playoff structure.
At this point they should just leave the bowl games out of the playoffs. I wish the original âplayoffâ would have just been a +1 after the bowls or a 4 team tournament with the winners of the major bowls. Itâs too much of a hassle now to try to make sure everybody is happy with bowl tie ins for a 12 team playoff. You can still do a neutral location for semis and championship but the first two rounds should be on home field for higher ranked team.
I am a fan of leaving the bowls in there, and even traditional matchups.
However, bowls are part of a larger system and only need to be accommodated to the degree that they make conferences happy. They really donât have much leverage here. (The Rose Bowl gets extra consideration only because two conferences love it so much.)
Well I think that if this whole playoff thing collapses and these 16 teams are playing themselves every year, they wonât be fine. No one is going to watch it, which means no one is going to want to pay to broadcast it.
Donât assume because things are a certain way now that they will remain so. I mean 10 years ago, who could have foreseen that (1) college players would become free agents, (2) HBCUs would be competing for top talent, (3) UH, Cincinnati, UCF and BYU would be going to the Big 12, (4) UH would be in the Final Four, and (5) PAC 12 football would be a big fat 0?
This thing is a whole lot closer to falling apart than people think.
If it was just about money, they would have signed the deal awhile ago because the money is there. There is something else going on that is not money related. Itâs about power, which means that it is now personal. In negotiations, those types of issue are harder to smooth over.
What I hate about it is 3 neutral site games, I fear playoff games being half empty stadiums in some cases and it sucks for fans with total costs. I agree having the schools actually go to their regional or traditional bowl needs to be done to at least keep that part. A lot of issues with that though and I think that is part of the hold up.
On that 12 team example, Michigan fans first travel to Miami then to Los Angeles then another neutral site (Indy would have been good this year). Thatâs tough. I used to be a Cotton Bowl season ticket holder just to resell until the playoff came around. Ticket prices dropped like a rock because of the bad matchups. Even the semi-final game with Alabama barely got face value. After Wisconsin-Western Michigan tickets were worthless I dropped out, lol.
Iâm still on board with the Acc and Big10 for auto bids for p5. Otherwise, whatâs the incentive to be p5 other than money. Itâs not a scared issue but itâs bc p5s play tougher schedules vs g5. Iâd be ok if they let the top 1 g5 auto bid then they likely get one more in the playoffs.
I just donât think empty stadiums are going to be an issue for playoffs at all. In this way, very distinct from bowls. But if it does start to be an issue (it could, after time, as the novelty wears off) then I think you do adapt.
Itâs⊠a lot of money. And exposure. And then all the P5âs get in anyway because they tend to produce the better champions. The only year that wouldnât have happened is 2020 with the weakest conference and an outright strange year. If a P5 gets left out itâs not because the P5 competition there is so much more difficult but because the conference itself is weak.
This works at the G5 level too, FWIW. The easiest conference schedule right now is Conference USA and they havenât sent a single team ever to a BCS/NY6 bowl. The most difficult is the AAC and they send one almost every year.
The thing that changes when the current CFP contract expires is the rules can be changed to not require unanimity by all the conferences plus ND. Whether itâll be 2/3 or a simply majority, who knows, but no new contract will be held hostage by an outlier or two, as the current situation is costing millions in lost revenue.
FWIW, the Rose Bowl game this year was fine even though the Big 10 winner didnât play.
Biggest problem is the ACC, who is trying to use this to force Notre Dame to join their conference.
Fischer downplays the importance of P5+1+6 vs 6+6 as a problem.
He spends more time talking about Big Tenâs concern with home games during the playoff (they donât want to host games). When Brown brings up P5+1+6, Fischer pivots away from it as an issue.
Rose Bowl issue an issue.
My suspicions that the Alliance is running the clock to open up bidding and that is what all of this about is supported.
I can see why that last one would be a huge issue, though itâs surprising to me that they canât work something out. âThis is our format, we will open bidding for 2026. ESPN can negotiate to expand it for seasons prior to that, during which they will have the exclusive rights to the playoffs presently due to them.â
ESPN gets a windfall for 2024 and 2025.
12-team system starts early
Everybody wins.
I actually thought something like this was what Sankey was alluding to the other day, but if Fischer is correct apparently now.
I concur with you parialex. Nielsen, arbitron numbers do not lie. We all know what is at stake. Money and the SEC is trying to keep the most that they can. I do not blame them at all. We would do the same if we were on the same boat. What the SEC has to realize is the long term impact of the current status quo. Losing that many millions with these two schools playing in the CFP final is a major wake up call for all P5âs concerned. The only way for the networks to expand market share or regain market share is to re-engage a âdormantâ audience. Making sure that the PAC12 is in the playoff at least guarantees some sizable West coast audience. The issue right now are âeyeballsâ not who is seating in the stands. More âeye ballsâ will lead to better stadium audiences.
Both 12-team plans do that. The argument is whether the six autoqualifiers are 5 P5s and 1 G5, or the top six whatever they may be.
It appears everybody but the Big Ten and ACC are fine with top six, but for some reason the Big Ten is digging in its heels on this issue. Equally fascinating, the SEC is vocally against autobids for the P5 and believe it should be top six. The Big 12 supports that position, too, against its self-interest. Iâm assuming all of the G5 prefer top six as well, though only Aresco has been vocal about it.
Anyway, both plans allow for six SEC teams for the six at-large bids, if it comes to that. The SEC really isnât the hold-up here.