So ... a one-time "loyalty pledge" by the M2 commissioners to sign the six-year CFP agreement with ESPN.

As opposed to a pointless Alliance 2.0 handshake agreement where Yappy pretends going forward he's going to work with Poor Jim Phillips in their mutual interests.

Whew, thank goodness.

Never did like that dog and pony show with Warren, Phillips and what's his name who got fired

Yappy will require a blood handshake

A 'loyalty pledge' to what? Being part of the P2-organised playoff as opposed to... starting their own postseason or something?

(03-15-2024 09:25 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

A 'loyalty pledge' to what? Being part of the P2-organised playoff as opposed to... starting their own postseason or something?

Yeah, they agreed to go with ESPN's deal b/c their other option was to just give up. Not much of a choice.

I really wish they'd called it an Alliance though, those have worked out quite well in recent years.

A what?

So does this mean they're going to wait until marriage?

(03-15-2024 09:25 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

A 'loyalty pledge' to what? Being part of the P2-organised playoff as opposed to... starting their own postseason or something?

Agree. The ACC (and B12?) publicly announced that their members unanimously approved the proposed CFP financial distribution. That was odd because I don’t remember a precedent…I was curious why ESPN wanted a formal record on this media contract:

Is ESPN getting fed-up with the politics of this CFP media deal?
Does ESPN not really trust Hancock, the CFP director?
Does ESPN not like the approach of the SEC / B1G?
Is ESPN worried about actions from the ACC / B12?

It seems like there is more to this story.

(03-15-2024 09:25 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

A 'loyalty pledge' to what? Being part of the P2-organised playoff as opposed to... starting their own postseason or something?

As opposed to....the two conferences negotiating with the P2 separately, and getting played off against each other.

(03-15-2024 09:56 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 09:25 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

A 'loyalty pledge' to what? Being part of the P2-organised playoff as opposed to... starting their own postseason or something?

Agree. The ACC (and B12?) publicly announced that their members unanimously approved the proposed CFP financial distribution. That was odd because I don’t remember a precedent…I was curious why ESPN wanted a formal record on this media contract:

Is ESPN getting fed-up with the politics of this CFP media deal?
Does ESPN not really trust Hancock, the CFP director?
Does ESPN not like the approach of the SEC / B1G?
Is ESPN worried about actions from the ACC / B12?

It seems like there is more to this story.

I think it's that ESPN wants this done and off their plate before the NBA negotiations kick into high gear. That exclusivity window opens in April

(03-15-2024 10:03 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  ... I think it's that ESPN wants this done and off their plate before the NBA negotiations kick into high gear. That exclusivity window opens in April

Or at least, ESPN wants the money sorted out before the NBA negotiations kick off ... they are less worried about the details of how the tournament is organized.

Counting the Bowl payment money getting bundled into the deal, the M2 are getting close to a pro-rata increase, while the SEC and Big Ten are eating the PAC-12 share, including a pro-rata increase on that, plus eating most of what would be a pro-rata increase to the Go5, who are being told that they can't keep their current ~15% share (including bowl money in the base) and also get a guaranteed ticket into the playoff proper, it's one or the other.

(03-14-2024 09:54 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

So ... a one-time "loyalty pledge" by the M2 commissioners to sign the six-year CFP agreement with ESPN.

As opposed to a pointless Alliance 2.0 handshake agreement where Yappy pretends going forward he's going to work with Poor Jim Phillips in their mutual interests.

Whew, thank goodness.

Never did like that dog and pony show with Warren, Phillips and what's his name who got fired

Did the ACC and B12 blink "SOS" while they were making their "Loyalty Pledge"?

The two should never schedule one another, schedule super soft, and try to game the system getting as many teams in the CFP as possible.

(03-15-2024 10:43 AM)esayem Wrote:  The two should never schedule one another, schedule super soft, and try to game the system getting as many teams in the CFP as possible.

The ACC other than FSU already does that. So do the SEC and most of the Big 10.

The Pac 12 and to a lesser extent, the Big 12, were the ones who scheduled more strongly.

I think the ACC should hire Kevin Warren as their new Commissioner so that he can manage this "Alliance". Not sure that Yormark will prove to be as easy of a target as Kliavkoff was, though.

(03-15-2024 09:25 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

A 'loyalty pledge' to what? Being part of the P2-organised playoff as opposed to... starting their own postseason or something?

Yes, Dodd's comment doesn't make any sense.

(03-15-2024 09:52 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  A what?

So does this mean they're going to wait until marriage?

Unless the SEC or BIG tell them they love them on prom night.

Strictly from a business standpoint, The ACC and The Big 12 need to be happy The SEC and The Big Ten don't take their ball and go home. A P2 is possible.

(03-15-2024 10:03 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 09:56 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 09:25 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

A 'loyalty pledge' to what? Being part of the P2-organised playoff as opposed to... starting their own postseason or something?

Agree. The ACC (and B12?) publicly announced that their members unanimously approved the proposed CFP financial distribution. That was odd because I don’t remember a precedent…I was curious why ESPN wanted a formal record on this media contract:

Is ESPN getting fed-up with the politics of this CFP media deal?
Does ESPN not really trust Hancock, the CFP director?
Does ESPN not like the approach of the SEC / B1G?
Is ESPN worried about actions from the ACC / B12?

It seems like there is more to this story.

I think it's that ESPN wants this done and off their plate before the NBA negotiations kick into high gear. That exclusivity window opens in April

The G5 is not on board with this. You have seen that group of 5 teams have beaten teams in both the SEC and Big 10. If SBC, MWC and AAC have schools that have no loses? You will have a blood bath if you allow a crappy 7-5 3rd place Big 10 team in the playoffs.

(03-15-2024 10:56 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 09:25 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

A 'loyalty pledge' to what? Being part of the P2-organised playoff as opposed to... starting their own postseason or something?

Yes, Dodd's comment doesn't make any sense.

The only way it makes sense is that the ACC and Big 12 made an agreement to be a united front vs the Big Ten, SEC (and probably ESPN, maybe the G5) for the CFP negotiations.

Big 12 and ACC probably agreed not to negotiate separately.

(03-15-2024 11:21 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 10:03 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 09:56 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 09:25 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

A 'loyalty pledge' to what? Being part of the P2-organised playoff as opposed to... starting their own postseason or something?

Agree. The ACC (and B12?) publicly announced that their members unanimously approved the proposed CFP financial distribution. That was odd because I don’t remember a precedent…I was curious why ESPN wanted a formal record on this media contract:

Is ESPN getting fed-up with the politics of this CFP media deal?
Does ESPN not really trust Hancock, the CFP director?
Does ESPN not like the approach of the SEC / B1G?
Is ESPN worried about actions from the ACC / B12?

It seems like there is more to this story.

I think it's that ESPN wants this done and off their plate before the NBA negotiations kick into high gear. That exclusivity window opens in April

The G5 is not on board with this.

On the one hand, nobody cares. (At least not enough people to matter). On the other hand, the G5 *does* seem to be on board with this. (I think I saw a tweet yesterday about Aresco being opposed, but getting zero support so he dropped it)

Quote:have seen that group of 5 teams have beaten teams in both the SEC and Big 10.

Yes, but not very often, and not very good Big Ten teams. If a Tulane beats a 4-8 Arkansas, who cares?

Quote:If SBC, MWC and AAC have schools that have no loses? You will have a blood bath if you allow a crappy 7-5 3rd place Big 10 team in the playoffs.

There' not much chance of a 7-5 Big 10 or SEC or Notre Dame in the playoffs. You'll have a stink if there are two undefeated G5s, there will be a hue and cry that the #13 9-3 Big TEn or SEC team got the bid.

I am frequently wrong, but one thing I believe I was right about is the P2 getting way more than the M2.

You don't add brands like Texas and OU, when you already have better brands to begin with, then say oh well we're all still equal colleagues, or anything close to it.