Protecting The Rose Bowl

your hypothetical scenario couldn't have M #1????

I love this blog. Pay attention aspiring MBAs. Brian's thworing you gold nuggets for your B school applications.

I know this would be a break from Pac 12 and Big 10 tradition but have the Rose Bowl host the National Championship game every year! If any of the other bowl sites whine then just remind them that the Rose Bowl was first and helped expand college football.

The Big 10-Pac 10 Rose Bowl matchup itself has truly been dead since the start of the BCS.

Man, this is all starting to make my head hurt, the more I think it.  Grasping who plays in the Rose Bowl when and how I don't think I fully understand (I do, but I keep reading stuff making me question how much I really grasp).  But yea, once again we re-learn it's all about what the O'Jays harmonize about, and I don't mean "Love Train"....(bass line) Money Money Money Moneeeyyyy

It's almost redundant to talk about anymore.  I mean this tongue in cheek, but we constantly write to one another about what should be done, what makes the most sense, why things should be one way over another, etc..  Why do we do it?  The higher ups always come back to give us a "final" product that takes none of what makes the most sense (or even remotely close) etc. etc., because all of these fools really care about is $$$ and how they can exploit the most $$$ out of whatever endeavor there involved in, in our case NCAA Football.  We're left to bi**h and moan, rightfully so, because what we're left with is a crap-shoot of product of what theoretically "could have been" a pretty good one.

I think I'm missing something from that conclusion about getting pwned at the negotiation table.  For any Bowl game the teams playing get the money.  This means Big Ten and Pac-12 will get the money from whatever bowl they play in.  It's true the distribution from the Semi Finals isn't determined yet, but I bet it has something to do with paying the teams participating, which for most conferences, means they split things evenly.

And then how much is ESPN bidding for the Semis?  Cause, if they are bidding the same 167% increase, then when the Rose Bowl is hosting it is getting similar growth.  If the Big Ten isn't involved in the Semi, then it won't get the money from the semi, which seems to be fair.

If the Rose Bowl doesn't want to be part of the Semis, then the only one I see getting pwned is ESPN for bidding so much for a consolation prize between the two conferences with the highest viewship/fans.

I'm also scratching my head on the "cynicism: achieved".  I mean, the whole point of having a play-off is to have more games to watch, and games that have high importance.  Where has this ever been done without thinking about the increased revenue?  This is the highest volume spectator sport in the world, and a per game viewership scale.  And the more that money get's back to the University, the more it goes to improving the facilities and coaching recieved by the student athletes.  Just like academic research is about getting huge grant money to pay professors, and build facilities like silicon chip fabrication machines so that students can study the latest cutting edge stuff.

The only thing I think needs to be fixed about the bowl games, is that the NCAA and the conferences need to tell the Bowl Admins to sell their own damn tickets!  I mean the Universities can easily link to the Ticket purchasing website of each bowl.  This whole, "purchase a block of tickets up front to resell" is archaic mentality that needs to go away.

Sorry, maybe I'm dense, but I'm not seeing the downside here, except for the dream of having these games played in snow.

Can someone explain to me why Mark Hollis has any interest in what happens with the Rose Bowl??

were instantly devalued when the semi-final games were decided to be within the bowl system and not as home games. Of course, the other major bowls are not actively trying not be to not be involved in the semis, which is the stupidest thing ever. In a hypothetical scenario where the Rose never hosts a semi-final, how much do you think ESPN will pay after this new contract is done? A Rose Bowl without any role in the future playoffs becomes a quaint old man in a smoking jacket. Nice guy but irrelevant. 

It blows and is an away game and home for most anyone we will play there.

Can we quantify the trade-off of what we gave up (in terms of $) in playing a home semi game in the B1G versus sticking to the traditional B1G versus Pac-12 playing in the Rose Bowl? I mean, if the B1G really was going to stick to its original stance of playing semis at a home campus (if ranked #1 or #2)  . . .  what would the cost (ESPN bid $) of that be versus going to a Bowl site? It seems from Brian’s analysis that we gave up a home semi for a share of the increased Rose Bowl income. Not worth it in my opinion.

I think that home sites would be more spirited, unique, interesting and a definite advantage to the home team. Thus making the regular season worth more and thus making SOS (“strength of schedule” worth more). I think it would substantially less expensive for the home team to host a semi, generate more local income (food and lodging) but ultimately I think the viewership of the semi games would be higher. Yes, there are logistical and weather issues but wait until you have pouring rain in a couple of outdoor semi games. I can’t wait until college football tries out home team semi games. I would like to see that happen. College football in the snow is not all bad.

... then we gave up nothing, and no one got p*wned.  AFAICT, no one wanted home playoff games except us and half the Pac12.  If Delaney and co. didn't do that math and capitulate, he would be ill-serving his employers.  The fact that the fans desperately want them is irrelevant.

I imagine the discussions to have gone something like this:

-----

Delaney: We want home playoff g-

Everyone Else (EE): NO!

Delaney: OK, in exchange for not pushing that we want -

SEC: Push it all you want, it's not happening, so you'll get nothing and like it.

Delaney: <pause> And if we don't agree to the playoff?

EE: You won't be in it.

Delaney: <pause> Right.  OK, what's next?

-----

Not sure what tradition the Rose Bowl is protecting by ducking the semis.  Most years, the Big Ten Champion or the Pac 12 Champion, or both, will be playing in the semis.  

The "Traditional" non-semi Rose Bowls will not be featuring the traditional Big Ten Champion vs. Pac 12 Champion.  They'll be featuring at least one runner-up.

I guess as long as ESPN is willing to pay $80 million for Stanford vs. Michigan State, nobody but the lowly fans will care.

Do we know for sure that in the years the Rose Bowl hosts a semi that it won't also host the actual Rose Bowl? I don't recall reading that anywhere. That is a pretty fundamental assumption in Brian's analysis.

I know everyone wants hosted playoff games, but that was never going to happen with the southern schools involved. So nobody got worked over here because there were no debates.

Personally, I watch CFB for the weeks leading up to January, and could not care less what happens after that.

In reality, ESPN is paying that record money solely for the semi games and is willing to broadcast the rest to lock down the entire bowl.  They know the traditional Rose Bowl match up without National Championship implications is meh for them money wise, but they'll hit a home run in the semi-final years.