Re: Benson other G5 Commissioners Oppose Expansion
Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2018 10:16 pm
BCS or CFP. It makes no real difference as it is all a popularity contest.
http://www.yosefscabin.com/forum/
Agreed. The only conclusion I can draw is that somebody's on the take.
Yep. That quote just reads like pre-planning to not need to back-pedal in a future job interview.AppGrad78 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:56 pmAgreed. The only conclusion I can draw is that somebody's on the take.
With 40-some-odd bowls, there are 40-some-odd bowl directors who are determined to keep the status quo. And most of them have the wherewithal to "influence" the decision makers in college football.
This fear of extending the season too far into January is nothing more than a red herring.
Currently , there are 39 bowls and ESPN owns 14 of them. ABC/ESPN also has the TV contract for the CFP which includes 6 more of those bowls plus the CFP Championship, and they own the TV rights to all but a few of the other games. It's pretty easy to see that ESPN holds all the cards/money, so if they're happy with the system everyone else will be as well. At least in their public remarks.AppGrad78 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:56 pmAgreed. The only conclusion I can draw is that somebody's on the take.
With 40-some-odd bowls, there are 40-some-odd bowl directors who are determined to keep the status quo. And most of them have the wherewithal to "influence" the decision makers in college football.
This fear of extending the season too far into January is nothing more than a red herring.
There are no longer really any powerful independent bowl directors that are fighting for the status quo. ESPN has purchased the vast majority of bowls and therefore ESPN is the bowl director. ESPN is clearly determined to keep the system because the bowl ratings are good, in fact they were up 12% this year. I don't think anyone individually is on the take, but ESPN (Disney) is a huge company with great influence that gets what it wants. The G5 are way better off under the current system than we were under previous systems and I am sure the collective G5 Presidents and ADs are afraid to rock the boat too much for fear of falling out and getting even less crumbs than they do now.AppGrad78 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:56 pmAgreed. The only conclusion I can draw is that somebody's on the take.
With 40-some-odd bowls, there are 40-some-odd bowl directors who are determined to keep the status quo. And most of them have the wherewithal to "influence" the decision makers in college football.
This fear of extending the season too far into January is nothing more than a red herring.
ESPN has ownership of most of the bowls but human beings still run the bowls — call them a bowl director, the chamber of commerce president, some civic head-honcho, whomever. They have a vested interest in seeing that the bowl remains in their city. Bowls have the participating schools on the hook for millions of dollars in the form of tickets, hotels, entertainment, etc., and almost none of that makes its way back to Bristol. An expanded playoff is likely to reduce the number of bowls, and you can bet the folks running the lower-tier bowls will do anything in their power to prevent that from happening.t4pizza wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:48 amThere are no longer really any powerful independent bowl directors that are fighting for the status quo. ESPN has purchased the vast majority of bowls and therefore ESPN is the bowl director. ESPN is clearly determined to keep the system because the bowl ratings are good, in fact they were up 12% this year. I don't think anyone individually is on the take, but ESPN (Disney) is a huge company with great influence that gets what it wants. The G5 are way better off under the current system than we were under previous systems and I am sure the collective G5 Presidents and ADs are afraid to rock the boat too much for fear of falling out and getting even less crumbs than they do now.AppGrad78 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:56 pmAgreed. The only conclusion I can draw is that somebody's on the take.
With 40-some-odd bowls, there are 40-some-odd bowl directors who are determined to keep the status quo. And most of them have the wherewithal to "influence" the decision makers in college football.
This fear of extending the season too far into January is nothing more than a red herring.
If the playoffs were to expand, I think the bowls see themselves as going the way of the NIT. The non-playoff bowl games will take on less relevance. Indeed, that'll happen. I would argue that it already has.EastHallApp wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:34 pmIs the idea that CFP expansion would reduce bowls because the earlier rounds would presumably be on campus sites? Or is their some other rationale?
Do the non CFP games actually have relevance now?AppGrad78 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:06 pmIf the playoffs were to expand, I think the bowls see themselves as going the way of the NIT. The non-playoff bowl games will take on less relevance. Indeed, that'll happen. I would argue that it already has.EastHallApp wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:34 pmIs the idea that CFP expansion would reduce bowls because the earlier rounds would presumably be on campus sites? Or is their some other rationale?
I guess I can see that... Don’t see the P5 capitulating, but we will see.moonshine wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:45 pm
Go check out what AAC fans are saying about it on the csnbbs board. Essentially, autonomous conferences have a "major" NY bowl tie-in (ie. Orange, Fiesta, Cotton & Peach) which gives them automatic inclusion into the (invitational) playoff. They want their "power" title back that they lost with the break up of the Big East.
My guess is Aresco is trying to get that auto tie-in via the Peach Bowl. Another words, the AAC wants inclusion in the current set up, not expansion. The AAC does not care what happens with the other 4 conferences, they are simply looking out for themselves. If expansion doesn't involve automatic inclusion they really have no reason to campaign for it. As it stands now, they are the top "G" conference and can more often than not get the Access NY6 bowl with a small chance at the CFP.
Here's what some AAC posters are saying about it:
"Aresco has never advocated for an expanded playoff. His goal was and is for the AAC to move back into the existing power structure that was taken in the last round of conference realignment,, period. The whole p6 campaign agenda is meant to apply pressure through fan acceptance of the AAC brand as a legitimate power by recognizing our accomplishments on the field/court enough for a NY6 bowl to accept us as their anchor conference which would put us back into the p5/6. As you can see as of now the conversation is being steered towards a g5 bid rather than an AAC auto-bid, that's not our goal at all because that would still leave us lumped in with the g5s. So calm down everybody,the man knows what he's doing"
"To be a power conference you just need a NY6 tie in. If we can get that with the Peach Bowl that would be huge. No more fighting other conference champions for a spot we just automatically get it by winning the conference."
"G4 isn't interested in playing at the highest level - except maybe a handful of teams like Boise, SDSU, etc. The conferences overall are going with this because they were given just enough money to keep quiet. The Sun Belt commissioner just said as much - they're happy with their $15 million regardless if that kills access for good.
Remember it took them being on board to agree to this - while ensuring the Big East/AAC was demoted in the process. AAC never had a chance. You have the P5 wanting at minimum the status quo and you have the G4 happy with the extra few million thrown their way to keep quiet.
This leaves the American on an island by themselves with Aresco likely being threatened behind closed doors. Explains his sudden change in tune given he created the P6 narrative. Now that it's real, they're spooked. One can hope UCF's willingness to rock the boat a bit can go far and maybe create pressure from outside the football club."
"Can anyone produce anything where Aresco has pushed for an expanded playoff? The goal was and is for the AAC to move back into the existing power structure. All that takes is a contract bowl which is the whole purpose of the p6 narrative"
I get your point but I still have to say.....ALL games have relevance to the teams who play them. The connection between a game and the national title is not the only source of relevance.AppSt94 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:55 pmDo the non CFP games actually have relevance now?AppGrad78 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:06 pmIf the playoffs were to expand, I think the bowls see themselves as going the way of the NIT. The non-playoff bowl games will take on less relevance. Indeed, that'll happen. I would argue that it already has.EastHallApp wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:34 pmIs the idea that CFP expansion would reduce bowls because the earlier rounds would presumably be on campus sites? Or is their some other rationale?