|
CUTrevor
2021-06-21 12:06:03
CFP Executive Director Bill Hancock held a media teleconference with us to discuss the meetings they were having to review the proposal of playoff expansion to 12 teams. The transcript is below! BILL HANCOCK: Hello, everyone. Thank you for joining
us here in the room and also by phone. We were talking
earlier about how nice it is to be able to shake hands, but I
reached out and gave knucks to somebody because I'm
still going to stick with knucks for a while.
To business: The management committee met over the
last 24 hours with some sleep time in there, plenty of sleep
time. They thoroughly examined the recommendations
from the working group, and the process will move forward.
We said this is just the beginning, and it is very much just
the beginning of a process that will not conclude before
September.
At next week's Board of Managers meeting, the
management committee will ask the board to authorize the
solicitation of feedback over the next several weeks and
months with constituent groups that are important to
college football. And those are expected to include
student-athletes, presidents, coaches, athletic directors
and others. And they will review with them the details of
the proposal -- which is, remember, still only a proposal --
and also begin feasibility assessments performance.
So the management committee, again, will be asking the
board for authorization to begin those reviews and
feasibility assessments. I'm going to stop there and see if
there are any questions. Q. What was the feedback or conversations like about
adding games? BILL HANCOCK: There was talk about almost every
aspect of the working-group proposal, including that one.
And at the end of the day, the management committee just
concluded that we have some important constituent groups
that we have not heard from and we need to.
And, so, I'm sure that will be part of the, I'll call it kicking the
tires as the management committee moves forward with
soliciting the opinion of folks. Q. What are the biggest concerns from the seven who
only recently received this proposal? BILL HANCOCK: That's a good question. Remember, the
four people have been in this for two years and the other
seven commissioners have been in it and the discussion
and in the know for about a week. And I think the biggest
thing that kept coming up was we just need time to review
this with our folks back on campus. And I think that was
probably the biggest thing, just we need time for more
input. Q. There's not been any discussion yet about when
this could -- I know we're still working on the "if" it will
be implemented, but the "when" it could be
implemented. You put this out there and a lot of
people are thinking, okay, are we going to have to wait
until 2026? Can we get this until 2023? Is that even
part of the discussion at this point as how soon this
could be implemented? BILL HANCOCK: The implementation part obviously is a
very important part of this. And the working group
intentionally did not get into it. They want to put a proposal
in front of the management committee that the committee
could consider without having the shackles of trying to
figure out when to implement it.
And the group this week didn't get into implementation time
in a significant way. That will come later. The first step is
determining whether this new format is even feasible or
something that the people on campus want to do. So that
implementation -- that important implementation matter is
still to be discussed. Q. Has there been any thoughts or discussions over
the last 24 hours to reexamining the quarterfinals and
maybe putting those on campus rather than in bowl
games as well? BILL HANCOCK: There wasn't significant discussion of
that today. But that will, again, all be a part of the
kicking-the-tires process that will happen between now and
September. Q. Wondering if anyone shared what their presidents
have been telling them between the initial
announcement and this meeting -- I know they're going
to go back, but have any of those concerns or issues
been raised here in Chicago? BILL HANCOCK: Not about specifics about the proposal.
But almost everybody said we need more time to discuss
this with our presidents back on campus -- ADs, coaches,
student-athletes. That was the prevailing theme of the
meeting. We just need more time. Q. Is that people saying that they want to slow this
process down, or is that keeping it on the same path
that it was ten days ago? BILL HANCOCK: I feel like it's on the same path. Just it
was emphasized that we just haven't received the
feedback that we need in order to make a decision. And of
course this meeting was never intended to be a
decision-making meeting. And neither is next week's
board meeting.
But it became very clear that people just need more time
to, I'll use the word, socialize the proposal with people on
campus.
If you think about it, this is a big deal. And everyone needs
to have a voice in what happens. And there just hasn't
been time to have that voice be heard.
I will say that some of the conferences were able to consult
with folks on campus, that they kind of fast-tracked it.
Others were not able to get people together. And I think
we all realized when we left the room that it was important
for every voice to be heard. Q. How would you describe the general reaction from
those who weren't part of the working group to what
was presented, especially around the number?
Because that was something that a lot of people,
again, outside were surprised that it was 12, not eight,
or six or whatever. BILL HANCOCK: Generally, the people in the room liked
what they saw. Realizing that they had not yet received
the input from their folks on campus. But I think generally
the first impression was that the working committee,
working group did a great job and we're pretty happy with
what they came up with.
But, again, I can't not overemphasize how important it is to
get the feedback from the key folks on campus --
student-athletes, coaches, presidents, ADs. That's the
most important next step. Q. What would you say was the biggest, maybe,
concern expressed by the people just hearing the
details of the plan? And what was the biggest
pleasant element that they embraced, just from initial
reactions? BILL HANCOCK: Pleasant element was more
participation. Concern -- I have to say not having had
enough time to review it with people on campus. Q. Wanted to ask if you guys had much conversation
about the potential impact that this could have on
nonconference games? And have you talked about
making sure that the selection process will incentivize
teams to schedule marquee nonconference games? BILL HANCOCK: The working group did spend plenty of
time on that. They feel that this proposal will make the
regular season better. Will make November better
because of the conference champions, the six conference
champions. And frankly will make September better
because of the at-large. So, both ends of the regular
season, and of course the middle too, we think will be
better, under this proposal. Q. My question is just in general, is there a sense
from, let's say, the Power Five, or the people who are
really charged with overseeing this college football
industry, to give something back to gain something,
which the current college football schedule, it just
seems like this is something that's going to be tacked
on at the end and go deep into the second semester,
which may not be in the best interests of many of the
constituents, namely the players. I don't know, just is
there a sense that the Power Five is willing to give
back a 12th regular season game or conference
championship games to gain something that could
potentially be bigger than any of that on the back end?
It just seems like this is an unwieldy add-on at the end
that's going to create a lot of tough circumstances for
people? BILL HANCOCK: Neither the working group nor the
management committee this week talked about those two
elements. If you remember -- you have to remember that
conferences have contracts for their conference
championship games, television contracts and venue
contracts that extend a fair amount of time into the future.
So, those elements have not been discussed at length by
either group. Q. Wanted to ask if there's more clarity how the New
Year's six bowls would factor into it, and what you think might be unintended consequences might be for
the entire bowl system as a whole under this
proposal? BILL HANCOCK: The group didn't talk about it today but
the working group talked about it at length. We don't know
who the six bowls might be if the format goes through.
That will be determined later. In my mind the six bowls that
will be a part of this will be delighted to be part of it.
As to the other bowls, this is Bill Hancock's personal
opinion, there will always be a place for bowls in college
football. There always has been and there always will be.
And so that will continue. Q. The 2022 season, you've been saying this
obviously couldn't be implemented for this year, is
2022 off the table also? BILL HANCOCK: Yes, it is. Both this year and next year is
off the table. Q. So, the earliest is 2023? BILL HANCOCK: Yes. Not to say that it will happen then,
but that's the earliest that it could. And I don't want the
headline to be "Hancock says it could happen in 2023," but
that's just the earliest. It cannot happen this year or next
year. Q. (Indiscernible) contracts? BILL HANCOCK: Contracts are in place. That's the main
reason. And if you think about it, by the time this gets
approved, if it does even get approved in September or if
it's kicked down the road after that, we'd be pretty close to
that season starting. Q. You mentioned no real bowl discussion. I was just
curious if the Big Ten or Pac-10 brought up the Rose
Bowl, where it falls or sharing where the Rose Bowl
could fit into this? BILL HANCOCK: It came up today. The importance of the
Rose Bowl in college football to all of us who love college
football. All of us who love college football love the Rose
Bowl. And that comes up in many of our meetings and has
in the 16 years I've been doing this. All the bowls were
talked about, with no specifics. Q. Have there been any talks or discussion in depth or
otherwise about a plan B, on the off chance this
feedback feasibility phase reveals too many concerns?
Is there essentially a rip cord for a backup plan to
move forward outside of 12? BILL HANCOCK: Good question. At the moment, I
suspect -- there hasn't been talk about a plan B. I think
always is plan B is plan C. Whatever is what we have.
And we're fortunate to have a four-team event that we all
like. Q. Last week the commissioners talked about how
relevant the bowls are. You just mentioned the bowls
will always be a part of college football. However, with
an expanded playoff, how much of a concern is there
that several bowls will be eliminated during the next
few years? BILL HANCOCK: That won't be for us to say. We manage
our event. And my strongest answer to that is there will
always be a place for bowl games. But I've got enough on
my plate with the six, seven, perhaps 11 games that we
may get ourselves into in the future. Q. Your meetings this week are happening at the same
time that there was another congressional hearing
about name image and likeness and compensating
athletes. As the group talks about a new system that
would possibly add more games to, asking athletes to
play more games, how does that factor into the
discussion, the notion that if this comes to be, there
are certainly going to be calls for the athletes to be
compensated for adding more games and taking on
more injury risk? BILL HANCOCK: Those things are happening on parallel
tracks, obviously. And we're all in the middle of watching
those. It's my hope that there can be more benefits for
student-athletes from -- if there is an expansion of the
playoff. What those might be, no one knows. We haven't
talked about it yet.
But short of pay-for-play, there's no interest in our room in
pay-for-play. But can we do more for student-athletes? I
think we'll all be interested in exploring what might be out
there. Q. Has your TV partner been involved in any of the
discussions yet, with ESPN in the room in one way,
shape or form -- I didn't see anybody from ESPN here
but there are Zooms and ways to get people here? BILL HANCOCK: No, they weren't involved. They know
what's happening, of course. Everybody in college football
knows what's happening. But they have not been involved. |
