Does The Pac-12 TV Deal Affect Likelihood Of A College Football Playoff?

the current structure of 1-A means that it’s almost impossible to put together a playoff that excludes the non-AQ’s. So if you want a playoff you need to either find a way to exclude them (either by leaving NCAA or forming a much more exclusive super-1-A), or allow them meaningful access, as well as allowing them (as well as the AA’s, D2’s, D3’s etc) to take for themselves a substantial percentage of the revenue generated from the playoff.

Right now, I don’t think that the power programs have the stomach for the fallout of fully abandoning the non-AQ’s (as well as possibly a few current AQ’s). And I definitely don’t think that they have any inclination whatsoever to allow the non-AQ’s (as well as D2 D3 etc) to get their hands on the playoff money. Ever.

Therefore, a playoff is unlikely to be imminent. The only real (IMO) way that could change is if the power programs ever made the collective decision to walk. And they’re making enough money as it is that I don’t think they have the incentive. Though if the non-AQ’s keep making trouble (and the anti-BCS lawsuit is a big example of this), then things could very well change in a big way.

I guess the big question to me is this 12-15 year contract time. I think that the Pac-12 would make it more likely for a playoff. However, would the Pac-12 media rights contract make it LESS likely for a playoff?

Are they locked in for years on these media deals or can they be amended in some way if a playoff comes around?

Since college football is now utterly obsessed with this national championshit thing, the idea of consolidating conferences in order to facilitate a playoff system is completely logical. I don’t know whether having four 16-team super conferences are any better than having eight 12-team conferences, since the superconference system will still have to have some sort of play-in component to accommodate deserving teams not in that group of 64. But nonetheless, having conference champs meet in a playoff is as elegant and simple a way to do it as there is.

Of course, this may likely result in a culling of the number of bowl games (not necessarily a bad thing), and definitely result in some bowls losing all their prestige (potentially a bad thing). But that’s just the price of doing business if the trend is to place the focus on the national champs.

For the record, I honestly prefer the old system of regional bowls and individual bowl champions and would like nothing better than to see all this national title / bcs / playoff nonsense just vanish. It seems there wasn’t much that much less honor or prestige in being Rose Bowl champs than in being National champs. But then, I know I am in a very small minority on this.

Mandel’s arguments just make him sound a bcs stooge.

Boom roasted!

I was reading this article from Rivals, and if you do the math, three conferences television rights are set to expire at the same time. In 2024, the Pac-12, Big-12 (texas version), and SEC will all expire.

The ACC is set to expire in 2022, and the Big-10 in 2017. I wonder if this was a conscious effort by the networks to drive down the conference asking price during the next negotiations.

I’m not sure if this is a case of “protecting the regular season” Stu. Are you trying to argue that these huge contracts wouldn’t be possible if there was a playoff in place? Yes, the regular season contracts have been astronomical, but they’re tied into the value of individual conferences. The BCS has been proven ad infinitum to be bad for universities, bad for conferences, and good for scummy executives who are taking advantage of a very peculiar system. If conferences like the Pac-12 start marketing their own self-worth (as Larry Scott has done here), then they could find the possibilities for positive financial models much much greater.

I’m not sure what is meant by the bolded passage. I infer that money is largely at issue here. But is it only about money?

Allow me to state a contrary view: the BCS is good for the universities and the conferences. Essentially, the universities and the conferences created the BCS through a series of steps intending to avoid the creation of a Division I-A college football playoff.

University presidents have wanted to avoid a playoff in Division I-A (later known as FBS). The why of this is subject to much speculation and there may be a variety of reasons why university presidents don’t want a playoff. But I think that it’s safe to say that money is at the root of this desire to keep FBS college football as it is with a bowl system. I think that university presidents fear killing off the goose that continues to lay golden eggs. Or to put it another way, and in very stark terms, they’re junkies and FBS football is the metaphorical equivalent of heroin.

Why else would dozens of Athletic Departments in NCAA Division I-A continue to run deficits in the millions each and every year to be Divisions I-A members? Why would Division I-A see its membership increase, drawing new members from Division I-AA even at the risk of losing money as FBS members? Why would FBS schools agree to ticket guarantees even if they failed to break even on participating in a bowl game?

My bottom line assertion: we continue to have a bowl system because university presidents thinks it benefits their institutions more than a playoff would. And the conferences go along with this because they cease to exist without the support of the university presidents.