Scheduling, economics, and what should Pete do?

by beattherush, Chicago, Thursday, May 21, 2026, 08:42 (4 days ago)
edited by beattherush, Thursday, May 21, 2026, 08:49

I was tempted to post a snarky comment about the Kent State scheduling, and then read that there are in fact some ties to Kent State and at the end of the day they're just another MAC school, so I stood down. On thinking on it further, though, Pete's wrong in scheduling that game and we appear to have hired Swarbrick 2.0 (not meant as a compliment, YMMV).

An explanation and discussion:

There's been a lot of chatter about the 24-team playoff as village idiot Tony Pettitti has been pushing it and it's B1G Media week so that's the topic on the offseason podcasts et al. The justifications that have been bandied about:
1) a bigger tournament will give "hope" to the mid-range schools
2) more money for the sport
3) more margin for error will lead to better out-of-conference scheduling

Wrong on all three counts.

1) won't help the Arizona States of the world, it will help the Minnesotas of the world. Last year's playoff selection makes very clear that the beneficiaries of a larger playoff will be the mediocre middle of the SEC and B1G. The rich get richer.

2) is silly. Think about the games that will be added: 9 vs. 24, 10 vs. 23, etc.. (Pat Forde had a good rundown on his Others Receiving Votes podcast). That will be something like USC / Arizona and Iowa / South Carolina. That's our compelling first round? I am not convinced 8 of those games will make up for the $200M+ that CCGs bring in today. And it's split 65+ ways.

3) sounds good, but won't happen. USC's and Indiana's reaction will be pretty typical. Hide behind the conference schedule, set up tomato cans, rake in the gate.

It helps in considering the 24-team question to look at who is asking it. Sankey (ESPN) is opposed. Pete (NBC) is for it. Petttitti (Fox) is for it. Right now ESPN holds rights to the 12 team version and keeps them at 14. At 16 or more there is some room for negotiation.

The real problem for Fox et al though isn't lack of playoff access -- they could have bid on that, they didn't. The real problem is that they did bid for a B1G package that sucks, particularly in the early season. The Fox Big Noon game for Week 1 this year is likely going to be Marshall / Penn State. That's their best option.

So the battle behind the scenes is not over the playoff size, it's about creating compelling TV slots in the early and mid season and also not screwing up the golden goose. The added 8 playoff games are mostly a wash; hell, ESPN's sublicensing even some of the existing playoff games to TNT/TBS. The real payoff is more ND/Miami 10M viewer games in September.

There's been some talk of teams moving to neutral site games as a way to tap that market. Duke / Michigan in CBB was moved to that format, with ESPN's blessing, and it's gotten the attention of TV execs. USC tried to set up something like that in week 0 with ND and Netflix in Mexico City.

So, in that market, Pete's goals ought to be:
a) Break the ESPN monopoly on the playoffs and its outsized impact on playoff selection. Exhibit A: Alabama's 2025 selection.
b) Head off a B1G/SEC breakaway, probably bad for the sport and definitely bad for ND even though we'd be included
c) Kill the scheduling cartel that is slowly forming to force ND into a conference by limiting our late-season scheduling options. This is the real reason we let USC walk. Week 0 long-term does not work for the USC game, and Pete knows it. (One of Freeman's few mistakes was "anytime, anyplace")

And the cards he has to play are:
1) Top-level relationships from his NBC days
2) ND's ability to drive gate for specific teams/conferences. ND showing up has a huge impact on any team's ticket sales, beyond the game because most teams force season ticket sales on the backs of an ND game at home.
3) ND's ability to drive ratings. This is his weakest card - our ratings are now materially behind the largest football schools. But it helps a lot with early and mid season matchups that TV execs would like.
4) Reputational equity, which is non-zero but does not really pay the bills.

Scheduling Kent State, in my view, squandered a card.

ND games are the currency we have in this fight. I'd rather us spend it on either a) propping up the B12 or b) making nice with the B1G and SEC by scheduling their mid-tier schools. I get that we need some tomato cans. But some tomato cans help us in the broader fight, and some do not. Kent State does not.

Pete probably knows all that better than me. Maybe I'm missing something, he's the ex-TV exec, not me. But I am increasingly having trouble seeing what the end strategy is going to be to achieve the goals the program ought to have. Which means either a) there's a lot going on behind the scenes that we don't see (entirely possible) or b) his goals are not aligned with the above, which may be a bigger problem.

The good news is, I bet the TV honchos are getting pretty unhappy with their early-season ratings and don't appreciate USC swapping a big ND game for a useless game against San Jose State. Next contract round, my hope is that they put some financial teeth into season-long scheduling. If we play this right, we can force the B1G and SEC to open up mid-to-late season scheduling to appease the TV bidders. Time will tell.