OT - Rose Bowl in danger of losing CFP semifinal game

Submitted by TrojanBlue on December 14th, 2020 at 10:25 PM

The Athletic's Stewart Mandel reports the ACC, SEC and Notre Dame are pushing the CFP committee to move the Rose Bowl's semifinal game from California to a state that allows fans in the stadium so parents can attend.  The most likely venue is AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas.  Pasadena owns the Rose Bowl name, so if the game is moved, there would be no Rose Bowl for the first time since 1916. 

Mandel says moving the game  "could have significant long-term consequences for one of the most valuable properties in college sports....  The CFP acknowledging one of its marquee games can just as easily be played in a random indoor NFL stadium could permanently erode the Rose Bowl brand. The primary reason the CFP semifinals aren’t played on New Year’s Day every year is because the Rose Bowl’s timeslot is considered sacrosanct.  That would be a lot harder to justify moving forward. 'It becomes just another college football game,' said the industry source."

The article mentions the committee is meeting this Tuesday and Thursday and could make a decision this week.

https://theathletic.com/2261349/2020/12/14/rose-bowl-college-football-playoff-move/

MGoBoard
Football

ldevon1

December 15th, 2020 at 7:53 AM ^

It has more to do with rich alums that want to attend the game. It is striking to me when I see a game that has 30 - 40% of the stadium filled, compared to the B1G. It really does make a difference. This quote: The CFP acknowledging one of its marquee games can just as easily be played in a random indoor NFL stadium could permanently erode the Rose Bowl brand, is a little bit of an exaggeration IMO. This is a different football season, by all measures. 

Joined: 09/09/2015

MGoPoints: 36887

dickdastardly

December 15th, 2020 at 9:27 AM ^

It's not just white folks. It's scumbag politicians in general. Case in point Denver Mayor who just happens to have dark pigmented skin who put Denver in lockdown yet though it was okay for him to get on a plane and go be with his family in Mississippi. For them, it's the typical do as I say and not as I do. 

https://www.denverpost.com/2020/11/25/denver-michael-hancock-thanksgiving-covid/

Joined: 09/03/2020

MGoPoints: 24363

energyblue1

December 15th, 2020 at 10:44 AM ^

Thankyou!  The narrative that all the issues are rich white men is such BS!  It's these ahole leaders we've elected or been put on corporate boards and ceo's that are doing this.  And they aren't just white they are all races and nationalities. 

Do as I say, not as I do and when in doubt blame the avg white dude and when that doesn't work blame the rich white dude! 

Joined: 03/19/2010

MGoPoints: 5291

energyblue1

December 15th, 2020 at 11:28 AM ^

The bs apologies after they are caught.  The sanctimonious TV appearances telling everyone to stay home, don't spread, mask up and we've seen mayors, council members, city, state and federal leaders all doing this.  The best was the mayor of Austin, Texas on the local news telling everyone to stay home, don't eat out at restaurants.  Days later it was discovered he did the tv promo while on vacation in Mexico for his daughters big wedding! 

Can't imagine why most all Americans are sick and tired of the bs from politicians... 

Joined: 03/19/2010

MGoPoints: 5291

yossarians tree

December 15th, 2020 at 12:47 PM ^

The old saw about the politician who speaks out of both sides of his/her mouth has gone the way of the dodo. Now they just outright lie to everyone's faces with an arrogant smirk that suggests they know that no one will hold them accountable. And they've got us all convinced that it's "the other side" (either one) that is pure evil. All swept along by their crony lapdogs in the media. 

Joined: 08/19/2010

MGoPoints: 22296

Sione For Prez

December 15th, 2020 at 7:28 AM ^

All the 6 team playoff does is cause the same tired arguments just now instead of 4v5 it's 2v3. And it's even worse because it's such a massive advantage to not have to play an extra game. 

Go back and look at the final rankings each year. Pretty much every year the 2 and 3 seeds have identical records. At least the NFL has an on field system to determine playoff seeding. 

I'm fully on board with 8 teams, 5 major conference winner, a top ranked G5 and two at large. Can still do games on campus for top 4 seeds as reward for great seasons. 

Joined: 11/16/2015

MGoPoints: 10674

canzior

December 15th, 2020 at 7:14 AM ^

So I was against the idea of expanding for awhile, mostly because there just aren't many 5-8th ranked teams that deserve to be in the playoffs anyways. That's the range of very good teams with a glaring flaw or a really bad loss. But the CFP Committee isn't picking the most deserving teams, they are picking the best teams and because the rules change from year to year based on who is ranked where, I think an expansion would be ideal for everyone outside of the SEC.  8 teams is ideal because you want all 5 conference winners and 1 G5 school each year. That leaves 2 wild card spots and there should be a rule that doesn't allow 3 teams from 1(SEC) conference.  

Also teams that play FCS schools (in November) shouldn't be allowed into the playoff and the teams that have the best non-conference wins should get preference when deciding the wild card spots.

Joined: 05/28/2010

MGoPoints: 9223

Blue Ninja

December 15th, 2020 at 9:37 AM ^

I think expanding the playoff is the only way to get more teams into the playoffs and get them a seat at the table. Why does everyone want to go to schools like Alabama, Clemson, OSU, LSU, etc? Its because they are some of the only schools with a shot at the playoffs. If keeping it at 4 is the excuse that other teams aren't worthy then why do we have a 64 team playoff in basketball? Many years more than half of the teams have absolutely no chance to win and yet there are some Cinderella's. Is it as likely in football? Probably not but strange things do occasionally happen even in football. I don't know that I would ever advocate for more than 8 but I think it's worth starting there.

Joined: 11/17/2009

MGoPoints: 5759

GoBlueOval

December 15th, 2020 at 8:17 AM ^

What about just getting rid of the playoff or even the championship game?

Go back to a league centric model. Win your conference and go to that conference's special bowl game. I think all of college football felt more special when any team could win their conference and go to the Rose Bowl or Sugar Bowl. 

Now college football is just about following 6ish teams and wondering if one or two other teams can break through every once in a while. 

Joined: 01/04/2012

MGoPoints: 1145

ahw1982

December 15th, 2020 at 11:46 AM ^

Old bowl system was better for student athletes.  Regional championships across multiple conferences creates more desirable teams for athletes (i.e., more teams that will get media coverage, as opposed to media focusing on the small handful that are national title contenders).  More desirable teams for athletes creates more "spots" to compete for, allowing athletes to give more consideration to other concerns (like proximity to family, academics, etc.).  PAC-12 comes to mind as a conference that has become a less desirable student athlete destination under the current system.  Under the old system, USC would probably get more media coverage as an undefeated team in the PAC-12.  Today . . . nope.  Thus making the spots on that team less desirable from an exposure standpoint.

Current system puts the spotlight on like 4-5 dynasty schools every year, and as a result athletes are clawing and climbing over each other for spots on those teams, which also creates the boom in transfers when the opportunity to start for a team is gone.  None of this is really good for the student athlete.

Joined: 06/09/2010

MGoPoints: 1852

Tuebor

December 15th, 2020 at 8:24 AM ^

For it to be a true playoff every program in FBS needs a real shot to make it.  So there are 10 conferences so you need at least a 12 or 16 team playoff to include each conference's champion.

 

12 gives the top 4 first round byes.  16 gives you more at large teams.  

 

 

Joined: 03/14/2011

MGoPoints: 17467

energyblue1

December 15th, 2020 at 2:10 PM ^

I'm for an 8 team playoff so long as the P5 Conferences adopt some type of uniformity ruling of schedules.  Or give a definite point system to P5 opponents played and number of conference games played. 

Otherwise 16 teams, no bye weeks, 4 weeks, each p5 gets at least 1 member in and no conference gets more than 4 in.  Imo this is to prevent the sec/acc from loading up on 4 cream puff non conf and then only play 8 conference games to get to ten wins and get 5 or 6 teams in that didn't even play each other in the regular season..    I'm for the BigTen adopting what ever scheduling and admissions rules the sec has. 

Joined: 03/19/2010

MGoPoints: 5291

crg

December 14th, 2020 at 11:33 PM ^

Don't worry, it's not really a playoff.

It's a four team invitation-only mini-tournament, held at some generic commercialized "neutral sites", put on at the end of the year rather than the beginning (like in CBB).

It also doesn't help that around half of the official field of potential participants have no actual chance of qualifying, even if they do everything "right", while the top tier candidates can make mistakes that are "forgivable".

Joined: 04/30/2015

MGoPoints: 75054

Carcajou

December 15th, 2020 at 6:50 AM ^

Exactly.
A playoff is a misnomer. The real play-offs in the true sense of the word are those one-game baseball playoffs when two teams are exactly tied at the end of the regular season.

In other words, it is to determine the "better" team, when no other way exists, and only occurs in those circumstances. A so-called :"playoff" where teams are ranked (or that includes "wild cards") means that some teams are better than others, but we're going to have a tournament anyway, and the winner of that tournament will be declared "champion.

"

Joined: 02/26/2009

MGoPoints: 5794