BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
We’re going in circles. Agree to disagree.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
CFP-With Right HC and 8 teams, this is not unrealistic
- Thread starter boydbuff
- Start date
They do?
That's....
Not anywhere close to the usual ownership structure for bowl games.
I'm not saying you're wrong, and if you are right, then yes, it would create a much different dynamic for playoff expansion negotiations.
ScottyBuff
Well-Known Member
I don't think it is accurate to say the conferences own the Rose Bowl. The City of Pasadena owns the stadium and the community non-profit owns/operates the Bowl game.
Their was an exclusive contract for years with the Big Ten and Pac8/10/12 but there was never any ownership. The Rose Bowl Association greatly values the tradition of their game, as does the Big Ten and the Pac-12 and therefore it seems like they speak with one voice. Most of the non-profit directors are Pasadena residents, or were born and raised in Pasadena (with the exception of some of the executive committee).
The Tournament of Roses Association are partners with the P12 and B1G for the RB games. It is not just about tradition RE: the RBG for the conferences.
ScottyBuff
Well-Known Member
Oh, no question that they are major stakeholders in the game; and I'm not disputing the assertion that the RB would be a major obstacle in an expanded playoff without some type of concessions or change in the process compared to what has been proposed.
I'd have to double check the 990's but does the B1G and P12 get any distribution on years they don't place a team?
Update: In years where it serves as CFP semi-final there is no payout to the B1G or P12 it is made to the CFP. The last time a non-B1G/P12 team participated in the traditional RB was TCU in 2011 and there was no payout to the P10/P12 that year only the B1G and the "BCS" for TCU's participation.
Last edited:
My understanding is that the RBG has three owners: the Tournament of Roses Assn, P12, and B1G. These three organizations have an equal financial interest/liability in the game. The payout model for this game is different than others. There’s a normal distribution to conference participants in the game. There’s also the revenue from the game itself: TV, parking, concessions, tickets, CFP LLC payout when it is used as a semifinal site, etc. In scenarios when the game participants are not B1G or P12 teams, the conferences and the ToR Assn split the non-participant money.
The reason why the B1G and P12 fight so hard for having a game playing tie-in with their conferences is because of this financial interest in keeping as much money as possible for their conferences. They lose a ton of money when non P12 or B1G teams are playing the RBG.
This is why I think an 8 team model will have difficulty in overcoming the major bowls. The current model still emphasizes the major bowls by giving them great matchups along with national airtime with minimal competition. They still make a lot of money (even though the RBG makes less than they did in the BCS setup).
hawg1
Well-Known Member
The new system will have to make significant accommodation to the SEC as any 8 team playoff will diminish the importance of their CCG. The Nicole Aurabach article was good. I have no doubt she got the feedback she got. She just interviewed the wrong people for the article.
hawg1
Well-Known Member
How will he explain this to the Rose Bowl Committee and conference presidents? There is a reason he said it’s “just fine” after this year.
hawg1
Well-Known Member
Same for Sugar and SEC/B12, although B12 Commish is willing to sell his soul, Sankey isn’t.
gar
ScottyBuff
Well-Known Member
I'd really like to see where there is any evidence of this ownership. I am not being difficult, I seriously try to follow the business side of college football very closely and I've never seen this. Please send a link or PM me with what you find on this.
What I do know is that the official Pasadena Tournament of Roses Association is a tax-exempt organization that hosts and collects the majority of the revenues from the bowl game and parade (TV, some tickets, and sponsorship rights of both events). They pay the Rose Bowl Operating Company (RBOC) to maintain the stadium and operate the event. The RBOC is also a tax-exempt organization, and they collect the tickets, concessions, etc and pay for the upkeep and improvements on the stadium; as well as host other events throughout the year like concerts, etc at the stadium.
The Big Ten and Pac-12 are also tax-exempt organizations. This means that all entities are required to file Form 990 and make them publicly available. In the Form 990 there is a Schedule R that requires the organization to list all related-parties and any financial transactions between them.
In all of the Form 990's filed by the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Association, Rose Bowl Operating Company, Big Ten Conference, and Pac-12 Conference there is never any such relationship mentioned, nor any payments between the organizations other than as appearance fees when the conference's teams make the Rose Bowl game; but never any additional transactions or disclosures of a financial interest beyond that. None of the compensation paid out from the Rose Bowl (from either the Association or the Company) are paid to anyone linked to any of the conferences.
There is certainly a long-standing relationship among the three that is unique to the Rose Bowl and probably one of the best stories in college football history as it intersects many socio-political issues the country has faced over the last 100+ years. And none of what I have posted deters from the main point: expanding the playoff could face a major hurtle in the "Rose Bowl Alliance" (as it is commonly referred to but is not an official name). And as much as I would love to see an expanded playoff, I'll admit that the Rose Bowl is one of those crown jewels of college football that I'd hate to lose the tradition and reverie of.
If you find any articles, or otherwise, about the business relationships involved please post; I seriously am kind of a geek about this type of stuff.
CVBuff
Well-Known Member
When 6-6 teams play in mid December, they are usually a torment to watch. Most of the teams don’t deserve to still be playing in December. An 8 team playoff puts interesting games into December and eliminates the most mediocre teams from bowls. More fun watching for real college football fans and more money. Do you have conference champions aligned to go to specific New Year’s Day bowls if they win the first game? like the Rose Bowl for the PAC-12? Some traditions can be kept. The problem with an 8 game playoff is the16 game schedule for college teams. It kills the players’ bodies. Pro athletes can train and then hang out. College kids are less mature physically and many non-SEC athletes work an additional full time job as a student. The money will win out. 8 teams coming our way. Personally, I look at teams like Clemson, Alabama, Georgia, FSU, Penn State, Oregon et al. as sorely tainted and find myself less interested in the outcome than in years gone by.
BTW. The Rose Bowl Game is owned by the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Associations. No one else.
BTW. The Rose Bowl Game is owned by the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Associations. No one else.
I haven’t seen anything like what you’re saying from the tax document side. Only things I have read indicate that the P12 and B1G are “partners” with the ToR committee for the game. I’ll have to do more research about the contractual conference tie-ins related to the game. Thanks for providing the info you did; it’s very interesting.
The depth of the Pac-12 is real. We've had a couple down years, but the truth is that we have a conference that every program has shown it is capable of winning over the years. Every program is capable of delivering Top 15 type seasons.
On that note, it's all the more reason for us to want an expansion to 8 playoff teams -- especially since it's extremely unlikely the Pac-12 will drop down to 8 conference games a year and it's a frikin' unicorn to go undefeated in Pac-12 play.
On that note, it's all the more reason for us to want an expansion to 8 playoff teams -- especially since it's extremely unlikely the Pac-12 will drop down to 8 conference games a year and it's a frikin' unicorn to go undefeated in Pac-12 play.
ScottyBuff
Well-Known Member
How do you feel about the Rose Bowl in that scenario?
I give zero ****s about the Rose Bowl.
ScottyBuff
Well-Known Member
That is actually their next sponsor: The Rose Bowl presented by Zero Sh!ts
Only the hardest of the hardcore fans are watching these lower tier bowl games. The games are meaningless and more people are cutting the cord every year. I'm pretty hardcore but I didn't remember to watch any of them. I'm pretty much in basketball mode now. It will be interesting to see if ratings are down in the non-playoff New Year's Six games as well. If so, panic might start to set in. ESPN is likely to push as hard as they can for an expanded playoff.
Too bad we cant do a 6 teamer with play in #3v#5 and #4v#6.
Of course some day we will complete our raping of the BigXii and then there will be only 4 conferences and this nonsense can go away with the CCGs being the deciding factor and not voters or a silly computer.
serious question, in a hypothetical expanded playoffs, what's the rationale behind giving the (current) P5 schools auto-bids but not any other conferences?
I realize those five conferences have dominated college football the last decade or so, but that doesn't seem like a legit reason to give them a built-in advantage for future seasons. In the decade before that, MNC's were awarded to Mountain West and Big East schools (both of which are now in P5 conferences).
It seems like giving the P5 conferences auto-bids is a way to increase the chance that the rich get richer and the poor stay in their place.
I realize those five conferences have dominated college football the last decade or so, but that doesn't seem like a legit reason to give them a built-in advantage for future seasons. In the decade before that, MNC's were awarded to Mountain West and Big East schools (both of which are now in P5 conferences).
It seems like giving the P5 conferences auto-bids is a way to increase the chance that the rich get richer and the poor stay in their place.
It’s mostly about money. Networks want ratings and G5 schools don’t deliver outside of a single Cinderella story.
If you really want to rock the boat start talking about how we need a relegation system.
The only thing this says is that ND will never get this benefit of being an automatic bid as an undefeated, so long as they remain independent.
So, one blowout game is the norm?
hawg1
Well-Known Member
It is additional evidence. Again. Like previous years. The competitive frame for CFB does not run 8 deep for a NC. Data say it may not be four deep.
I forget the exact stat but of the 8 semifinal games coming into this year I think they said like 5 of them had been decided by 21 or more points.
EDIT: Just looked it up and 6 of the 8 semifinal games have been decided by 17 or more
Last edited:
hawg1
Well-Known Member
Last edited: