If Sankey retires, wouldn't be surprised if the ESPN #2 or #3 guy takes the job.

I thought he was a lawyer with previous stints at ABC and CBS. Also a C-suite guy with MLB I think. Last position was with Activision, less than two years I think. At least that is my memory from his BIG hiring release.

Just like ESPN and SEC.

to be saying, and I would not disagree, is that the media contracts and entities offering those contracts are in essence acquiring the conference and as the acquirer they designate the leadership. That raises some interesting questions for the ACC and Jim Phillips' placement as commissioner, in my opinion.

90% that are not.

Why with their schools do they keep driving this bus. I can see the G-6 wanting an automatic bid for their Conference Champions, but really the 7th place team in the B1G and the SEC? 🤷‍♂️

the expansion. Then, let the chips fall where they may. Whoever wins the national championship at that point will have to win it on the field. Let's play ball.

bids, but the conferences get to see if Cinderella can win it. It doesn’t threaten the Blue Blood 🏀 schools, in fact I think it energizes them. If UVA doesn’t lose to UMBC, they will tell you they don’t win the National Championship the next year. Ironically now, that UMBC Coach is now the UVA Coach. PS Think about the interest in College 🏈 during the regular season if every D1 Conference received a playoff bid!!! The TV ratings would be off the hook, that’s how you build more national and even worldwide interest/ratings!!!

The bigger, stronger teams will continue to grind them into the astroturf.

from advancing deep. If Cinderella gets enough shots at it, she will one. That’s not the most important point though, it’s like March Madness it pulls the whole country and world into following it, even though the blue bloods dominate it.

Cinderella beat a contender in that format.

Let’s build the sport audience up, this is our history, let every conference have a chance. Stop funneling it all to two conferences, we have done better in the past, and we should strive to do better in the future.

So what? The richer schools will always have the advantage, and they always have. Make them prove it on the field, not in the polls, what conference they are from, their history, or how much money they have.

...no more than three schools on any given year were actually good enough to play for the title, and usually there were just two...

teams will always win the games, then at what point does someone ask the following question? What is the point of playing these games if everyone already knows who will win it before kickoff? One reason I find the pre-BCA Era more appealing is there was controversy during the offseason because rarely did the #1 and #2 teams in either the AP Poll or Coaches Poll get to play each other in a bowl. It allowed the fans and media to debate who would have won the game had they played each other. Plus, in some years it led to a split national championship which could have led to more livelier discussions during the offseason. Now it is starting to become a little too predictable for my taste. The other part of the equation that I am interested to see play out is the attendance factor and when the games are played in the calendar year. Since the FBS Playoff games "need" full stadiums, regardless if they are played at a team's stadium or neutral site, and they are played during the "Holiday Season" when a lot of people decide to take off from work, I do wonder what percentage of the fan base will be able to attend every playoff game. If it is a relatively small percentage, then it kind of leads to the notion of only picking teams with a large fan base for the FBS Playoffs to ensure the stadiums are at full capacity for the TV. This isn't an issue for March Madness because the pre-Final Four rounds are typically played in basketball arenas that don't require the attendees to be football stadium numbers. Plus, the tournament isn't played during the Holiday Season when people may be jockeying against each other for time off from work.

will find that it has almost always been the rich schools that got the votes to be #1. There were exceptions like 80's Clemson, Colorado, BYU, and a couple others, but it was most definitely the richer blueblood schools that got the votes. The playoffs are showing that the SEC got the shaft, because even back then, they were the better conference, but one or two losses took them out of contention. There is also a long history of undefeated G5 schools that never had the opportunity to play the top teams because of bowl tie ins. SMU, BYU, and TT are now recruiting against the bluebloods. Why shouldn't they be given the opportunity? This goes down the line with aĺ of the schools that Never had the chance to play in the Rose Bowl before BCS. Play the game, people will watch, and give every FBS school the opportunity to play those teams that will never schedule them.

the conference title 9 times and shared it twice. TCU won it 7 times and shared it twice. Rice won it 4 times and shared it thrice. Houston won it 1 time and shared it thrice. As far as the bowl tie-ins go, there were a couple high profile bowl games that had at-large slots which could have gone to a G5 at the time. Now that started to really change in the late '80s and early '90s when the TV deals really started to take off from the SCOTUS ruling and more bowl games came into existence.

Could argue that have been many schools denied the opportunity to test their undefeated, one, or two loss teams against those that got the votes to be #1. For the life of me, I'll never understand why football should be exempt from settling their champion any other way than a playoff system as in college, the teams are so different year to year

prevents a team from playing multiple games in the same week for safety reasons. Given the game is played outdoors and have a huge attendance compared to the other sports, I get why the DI schools decided to go with the bowl system and why all the original bowl games were played in warm climate locations. I don't believe the NCAA started playing the DII and DIII playoffs until 1971 when the schools decided to create the 3 division levels and the DI playoffs until 1978 when DI created the two subdivisions in football. Given that the college football season used to end on January 1 or very soon afterwards, there wouldn't have been enough time to play a 10 or 11 game regular season and the NCAA hold its tournament while giving every DI conference a spot in the field. ** Edited by VTHokie2000 at 8/18/2025, 1:07:05 PM

altruistic reason other than that. The bowls were/are exhibition games, and they paid teams to play in them. The PAC's and Big 10 monopoly of the grand daddy of them all prevented any talk of a playoff system because they would not give up that money. The New 6ears 6 bowls was exactly the same. BYU had to schedule a 6-4 unranked Michigan team the year they won the national championship. 6 other teams that were ranked would not except the invitation to play. There was talk of BYU breaking their contract to play BC in the Fiesta Bowl that year, but seriously, there was no room for even a #1 ranked undefeated team to get a New Years date against the "blue bloods". An undefeated UCF relatively recently, and then Boise State knocking of Oklahoma in the 07 Fiesta Bowl. That team as well should have had a shot at the national championship - but purists wanted to keep the bowl system. Purists my eye, it was the Money they wanted to protect.

things were before the 1940s when the NCAA first started approving the applications for bowl games. Not how things evolved after the SCOTUS ruling in the early 1980s. In 1890, Pasadena, CA held its first Tournament of Roses Parade to showcase the city's mild weather compared to the harsh winters in northern cities. In 1902, the festival added the Rose Bowl game (originally known as the "Tournament East–West football game"). The early Rose Bowl games always matched a team (not necessarily conference champion) from the Pacific Coast Conference (predecessor to the Pac-12) against a team from the East. It wasn't until 1947 that the Rose Bowl got its Big Nine (now Big Ten) vs. PCC (now Pac-12 match-up) due to a number of factors (i.e. treatment of amateur athletes and views on desegregation). If you look at the history of the Orange Bowl, then you will see it is very similar to that of the Rose Bowl in terms of a desire to attract people from northern cities to visit Miami in December/January. Remember the Orange Bowl was created in 1930s during the Great Depression, so I suspect there were altruistic aspects to their sales pitch in order to get the NCAA, which is made of representatives from the various schools, to approve their application to hold a bowl game. I suspect if you look at the history of all the bowl games that existed back then, then you will discover some common characteristics. Remember the NCAA controlled the broadcasting rights back then which helped limit the number of bowl games that were approved each year. If the NCAA did increase the number of bowl games, then it was more controlled than how it became after the SCOTUS ruling because more networks wanted to broadcast a bowl game in the '80s and '90s.

and that is the point.

antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA. The NCAA basically controls the rights through its bowl certification process (see hyperlink). Remember NCAA members can't participate in a bowl game until after the bowl game has been certified by the NCAA committee. The hyperlink lays out the process and includes a timeline. It is unlikely a network will broadcast a bowl game if the bowl game is not certified because the bowl game will have difficulty finding 2 willing participants. Depending on what information is required on the form, it is likely the NCAA committee wants to know what network tentatively plans to broadcast the bowl game (if the application is approved). A case could be made that the $10K application fee includes the transfer of broadcasting rights to the bowl organization which includes ESPN since ESPN Events "owns and operates" 17 bowl games. "ESPN Events, a division of ESPN, has unveiled its schedule of 17 owned and operated bowl games for the 2024-25 college football postseason, which will feature 10 FBS conferences and two FCS conferences." https://espnevents.com/press/event/espn-events-announces-... ** Edited by VTHokie2000 at 8/18/2025, 5:50:07 PM ** Edited by VTHokie2000 at 8/18/2025, 5:51:30 PM