Conference Realignment

[Vespidae]

The ESPN commentators that covered the ACC Championship were saying in-game that FSU didn't belong in the playoffs. They were not playing to the audience of the ACC Championship game. The CFP committee was watching that game live, and listening to the ESPN commentators who were broadcasting that game say that FSU didn't belong. I don't know how you could say that they were simply playing to the audience, when that audience was probably highly ACC centric.

Are we relitigating this? Read the CFP contract. It does not have anything to do with deciding the “college football national champion”. It is a made for tv event, wrapped in the perception of a “playoff”, with $$$ distributed to those in the playoff AND the lower bowls.

The trophy states “College Football Playoff National Champion” … not, FBS National Champion. ESPN specifically asked to market it as a “playoff”.

Any team can return the money any time it wants. I won’t hold my breath.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I'm sure there was a lot of pressure. I'm just curious how many people on this board would have caved. If you don't think you would have caved, why do you think others would have caved? If you think you would have caved, I’m not sure why you have such a problem with how things turned out.

ETA: Lastly, I think the pressure was most likely coming from Sankey (and Saban and Smart) versus ESPN. ESPN has a contract with both the ACC and the SEC. I don’t think they care quite as much as some think if it was an ACC team or an SEC team in the playoffs.

I've been on way too many nominating committees for professional societies to even blink at people caving under the pressure. I was on one this year where the chair of the committee had an obvious agenda and if not for the effort of a single member (1 of 9), the outcome would have been dramatically different, and not for the better.

 

[iceeater1969]

There's a related thread on the Recruiting Forum. I made a very similar comment in that thread. To the point that, instead of raising the scholarship cap, the NCAA should have lowered the roster cap instead - if they wanted to help schools that struggle to compete with the factory budgets.

That would have been good.

Now, how bout the change the number of scholarships in a progressive manner like federal income tax. Or as in the bible to whom is given much, much more is required.
Along with limiting participation by nonscholsrship players, the ncaa can lower the total scholarship numbers of schools that are perennially in the playoffs. Without this throttle the same teams will be in the playoffs year after year.

 

[Richard7125]

I've been on way too many nominating committees for professional societies to even blink at people caving under the pressure. I was on one this year where the chair of the committee had an obvious agenda and if not for the effort of a single member (1 of 9), the outcome would have been dramatically different, and not for the better.

I’m sure you have. I just think it’s funny how many on this board wouldn’t cave, yet they readily believe the people on the CFP committee caved. That’s very conceited.

Secondly, I think Sankey was the one selling the SEC’s position. If I recall, Sankey was making the rounds and ginning up a coalition of other SEC coaches. I don’t recall Phillips doing that (perhaps he didn’t think he needed to). Sankey on the other hand was the one leading the charge and did a phenomenal sales job. Did on-air ESPN talent parrot Sankey’s position, sure they did, but I think that was due to Sankey’s sales job versus ESPN (the parent company) pushing an agenda. ESPN was getting one of their assets into the CFP regardless if it was Bama or FSU.

 

[orientalnc]

ESPN was getting one of their assets into the CFP regardless if it was Bama or FSU.

I still believe it would have been better for ESPN to have FSU in the playoffs.

 

[Richard7125]

I still believe it would have been better for ESPN to have FSU in the playoffs.

I agree.

 

[stinger78]

I’m sure you have. I just think it’s funny how many on this board wouldn’t cave, yet they readily believe the people on the CFP committee caved. That’s very conceited.

Secondly, I think Sankey was the one selling the SEC’s position. If I recall, Sankey was making the rounds and ginning up a coalition of other SEC coaches. I don’t recall Phillips doing that (perhaps he didn’t think he needed to). Sankey on the other hand was the one leading the charge and did a phenomenal sales job. Did on-air ESPN talent parrot Sankey’s position, sure they did, but I think that was due to Sankey’s sales job versus ESPN (the parent company) pushing an agenda. ESPN was getting one of their assets into the CFP regardless if it was Bama or FSU.

Sankey certainly sells the SECheat position, but he doesn’t have to sell sEcSPN. They have a huge contract with them, much larger than the one with the ACC. Thus, there is a higher loss risk factor with the SEC contract. The loss probability with the SEC may be less, but the potential impact is much greater with the SECheat as they have far more resources invested. You better believe they will mitigate that risk by making it “policy” to pimp the SECheat to build The Narrative. It’s good business for them.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I’m sure you have. I just think it’s funny how many on this board wouldn’t cave, yet they readily believe the people on the CFP committee caved. That’s very conceited.

Secondly, I think Sankey was the one selling the SEC’s position. If I recall, Sankey was making the rounds and ginning up a coalition of other SEC coaches. I don’t recall Phillips doing that (perhaps he didn’t think he needed to). Sankey on the other hand was the one leading the charge and did a phenomenal sales job. Did on-air ESPN talent parrot Sankey’s position, sure they did, but I think that was due to Sankey’s sales job versus ESPN (the parent company) pushing an agenda. ESPN was getting one of their assets into the CFP regardless if it was Bama or FSU.

I don't know what Jim said or to who he said it, if he said it, but, he's not typically going to stand in front of the public and lobby. That's not his style (for good or bad). He is the consummate professional in that he will work within the system instead of grandstanding like Sankey did. I personally think his office should have been more outwardly vocal leading up to the selection.

 

[Vespidae]

Sankey certainly sells the SECheat position, but he doesn’t have to sell sEcSPN. They have a huge contract with them, much larger than the one with the ACC. Thus, there is a higher loss risk factor with the SEC contract. The loss probability with the SEC may be less, but the potential impact is much greater with the SECheat as they have far more resources invested. You better believe they will mitigate that risk by making it “policy” to pimp the SECheat to build The Narrative. It’s good business for them.

This is like two prostitutes complaining about which one is prettier.

 

[stinger78]

I don't know what Jim said or to who he said it, if he said it, but, he's not typically going to stand in front of the public and lobby. That's not his style (for good or bad). He is the consummate professional in that he will work within the system instead of grandstanding like Sankey did. I personally think his office should have been more outwardly vocal leading up to the selection.

If not leading up to then certainly afterwards. My gosh! Kirby Smart was more passionate about “what happened” to F$U than Phillips was!

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I’m sure you have. I just think it’s funny how many on this board wouldn’t cave, yet they readily believe the people on the CFP committee caved. That’s very conceited.

Secondly, I think Sankey was the one selling the SEC’s position. If I recall, Sankey was making the rounds and ginning up a coalition of other SEC coaches. I don’t recall Phillips doing that (perhaps he didn’t think he needed to). Sankey on the other hand was the one leading the charge and did a phenomenal sales job. Did on-air ESPN talent parrot Sankey’s position, sure they did, but I think that was due to Sankey’s sales job versus ESPN (the parent company) pushing an agenda. ESPN was getting one of their assets into the CFP regardless if it was Bama or FSU.

Sankey is disgusting to me mainly because the ACC has never had a fighter like him

 

[cpf2001]

Sankey certainly sells the SECheat position, but he doesn’t have to sell sEcSPN. They have a huge contract with them, much larger than the one with the ACC. Thus, there is a higher loss risk factor with the SEC contract. The loss probability with the SEC may be less, but the potential impact is much greater with the SECheat as they have far more resources invested. You better believe they will mitigate that risk by making it “policy” to pimp the SECheat to build The Narrative. It’s good business for them.

The SEC contract may be larger but it's also safer in some ways - larger fanbases, more established regional powers.

The ACC contract, on the other hand, is longer* and full of underperformers with fading relevance. That's the ESPN asset that needs a boost.

Problem was, FSU looked kinda crap... "they don't look like they're good enough to help the ACC's rep without Travis" vs "they don't look like they're still one of the top 4 without Travis"... sorta the same thing, in the end.

(*blah blah blah we'll see if there's a full exit clause for ESPN if they exercise it )

 

[stinger78]

The SEC contract may be larger but it's also safer in some ways - larger fanbases, more established regional powers.

The ACC contract, on the other hand, is longer* and full of underperformers with fading relevance. That's the ESPN asset that needs a boost.

Problem was, FSU looked kinda crap... "they don't look like they're good enough to help the ACC's rep without Travis" vs "they don't look like they're still one of the top 4 without Travis"... sorta the same thing, in the end.

(*blah blah blah we'll see if there's a full exit clause for ESPN if they exercise it )

No one wants to relitigate whether or not F$U belonged. Dead horse now.

In an assessment of risk there are two main components: probability and impact. A low probability, high impact risk still requires mitigation. I agree, the probability of the SECheat failing to deliver in a given year is low. However, if it does, it’s a huge impact on sEcSPN. Thus, they mitigate that risk by constantly pimping them.

Does anybody here think that if UTA wasn’t SECheat bound that they would have gotten that bid? It would have been UGAg or F$U. My money would be on UGAg in that instance.

 

[Richard7125]

The SEC contract may be larger but it's also safer in some ways - larger fanbases, more established regional powers.

The ACC contract, on the other hand, is longer* and full of underperformers with fading relevance. That's the ESPN asset that needs a boost.

Problem was, FSU looked kinda crap... "they don't look like they're good enough to help the ACC's rep without Travis" vs "they don't look like they're still one of the top 4 without Travis"... sorta the same thing, in the end.

(*blah blah blah we'll see if there's a full exit clause for ESPN if they exercise it )

No one wants to relitigate whether or not F$U belonged. Dead horse now.

In an assessment of risk there are two main components: probability and impact. A low probability, high impact risk still requires mitigation. I agree, the probability of the SECheat failing to deliver in a given year is low. However, if it does, it’s a huge impact on sEcSPN. Thus, they mitigate that risk by constantly pimping them.

Does anybody here think that if UTA wasn’t SECheat bound that they would have gotten that bid? It would have been UGAg or F$U. My money would be on UGAg in that instance.

FSU/ACC is good for ESPN too. It wasn't a zero sum game for ESPN - SEC or nothing.

 

[roadkill]

That would have been good.

Now, how bout the change the number of scholarships in a progressive manner like federal income tax. Or as in the bible to whom is given much, much more is required.
Along with limiting participation by nonscholsrship players, the ncaa can lower the total scholarship numbers of schools that are perennially in the playoffs. Without this throttle the same teams will be in the playoffs year after year.

At this point with NIL, scholarship limits are not as meaningful. That's why I am a proponent of more stringent roster limits. Along with a progressive system similar to what you described - in the same vein as the NFL's draft order system. It won't fly with the factories though.

Last time I checked, over the last 20 playoffs (20 years/30 games/60 team spots), only 5 teams accounted for over half the total spots. 10 teams, 77% of the spots. No doubt some viewer fatigue could set in, but going to 12 teams does mitigate that somewhat.

 

[cpf2001]

No one wants to relitigate whether or not F$U belonged. Dead horse now.

In an assessment of risk there are two main components: probability and impact. A low probability, high impact risk still requires mitigation. I agree, the probability of the SECheat failing to deliver in a given year is low. However, if it does, it’s a huge impact on sEcSPN. Thus, they mitigate that risk by constantly pimping them.

Does anybody here think that if UTA wasn’t SECheat bound that they would have gotten that bid? It would have been UGAg or F$U. My money would be on UGAg in that instance.

The ACC is a high probability still-high impact risk IMO.

 

[stinger78]

The ACC is a high probability still-high impact risk IMO.

You’re certainly welcome yo your opinion. It would be an interesting comparison and discussion to sit in on.

Personally, I think - as things stand today - that the probability of failure is low for both, and the impact upon sEcSPN’s bottom line is greater for the SECheat. Therefore, their tendency to pimp the SECheat more.

I will say, however, that as things move forward along the present arc that the probability of failure is elevated for all conferences. As sEcSPN has more invested in the SECheat relative to the ACC, I would still expect them to put more emphasis on protecting that inventory.

I would like to sit in on a discussion of theirs on the topic.

 

[stinger78]

FSU/ACC is good for ESPN too. It wasn't a zero sum game for ESPN - SEC or nothing.

I never said it was. That kind of binary thinking precludes good analysis. I would suspect strongly they want both to succeed, but they tend to put more effort into the SECheat’s success.

 

[Richard7125]

I never said it was. That kind of binary thinking precludes good analysis. I would suspect strongly they want both to succeed, but they tend to put more effort into the SECheat’s success.

I misinterpreted your post because it sounded like you were only evaluating the value ESPN got whether or not if Bama got in. If Bama wasn't in, it was FSU so ESPN wasn't really losing much (if anything). The SEC/Sanky definitely cared.

Regardless, in hindsight, one can argue that keeping FSU out could ultimately cause more damage in the long run to ESPN if it causes the ACC to implode.

 

[stinger78]

I misinterpreted your post because it sounded like you were only evaluating the value ESPN got whether or not if Bama got in. If Bama wasn't in, it was FSU so ESPN wasn't really losing much (if anything). The SEC/Sanky definitely cared.

Regardless, in hindsight, one can argue that keeping FSU out could ultimately cause more damage in the long run to ESPN if it causes the ACC to implode.

This is where we differ. I believe that sEcSPN would much prefer their SECheat football property to excel. It has a much higher upside than does ACC football. They stand to make a whole of money off of that conference if they reach their potential. Just by the nature of ACC football programs I don't see the potential being nearly as high. That is not to say that we aren't or cannot be very profitable for them, but the potential profit from hordes of squint-eyed bumpkin SECheat football fans from the Carolinas to Texas is *enormous.*