FLBear5630 said:

---

tmcats said:

---

the sec not taking fsu after bringing texas claiming the former "disruptive" is certainly irony on steroids.

all that matters today, history and revisionism aside, is that the b12 will be equal to the b10 and approaching sec status if clemson and fsu are lured into the league.

---

I said for years, Florida will not allow FSU or Miami into the SEC. UF runs the State. People said money talks, not in the SEC there is so much money there that other things that other Conferences don't have the luxury of addressing. SEC don't need any other schools, including Texas, to print money.

---

the sec didn't need ou or texas either but took them out of pure hubris. and florida does not have veto power. it takes a three-quarters vote to bring a new school.

tmcats said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

tmcats said:

---

the sec not taking fsu after bringing texas claiming the former "disruptive" is certainly irony on steroids.

all that matters today, history and revisionism aside, is that the b12 will be equal to the b10 and approaching sec status if clemson and fsu are lured into the league.

---

I said for years, Florida will not allow FSU or Miami into the SEC. UF runs the State. People said money talks, not in the SEC there is so much money there that other things that other Conferences don't have the luxury of addressing. SEC don't need any other schools, including Texas, to print money.

---

the sec didn't need ou or texas either but took them out of pure hubris. and florida does not have veto power. it takes a three-quarters vote to bring a new school.

---

The Original 6 stick together in the SEC. If you do not have Bama, UGA, UF, Tenn, Auburn and LSU nothing is passing. If UF does not want FSU, FSU is not getting in. You guys keep thinking the SEC is a democracy. Vandy has more pull than the newbies, including Texas. You don't get their culture. They not only think that way, they take pride in it. SWC would never happen in the SEC because in the Boardroom the SEC Charters are even. If there is an even more inner circle it is the 6 I mentioned. SEC is the last Good Old Boy system standing and they ain't changing for anyone. They don't have to.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

historian said:

---

Bear2014 said:

---

SEC wants new territory. If they expand, it'll be UNC/NC State or UVa/VT

---

Do they really want to expand further? Is that speculation or have the SEC leaders actually said something like that?

---

Popular internet speculation. Not as sensible speculation either, since brand on brand matchups matter more than "territory" in the world of streaming. Clemson vs Georgia, FSU vs Alabama - those are ratings monsters. UVa vs, well, anyone = not so much.

---

This is exactly why the smoke around Clemson/FSU being excluded from the P2 makes no sense. It makes as much sense as the arguments against Oregon/Washington joining the B1G - sure, they took lower payouts because the alternative options were not attractive, but that realignment was inevitable after USC/UCLA joined the B1G.

---

The lower payout is no small detail. They don't get in the Big Ten without agreeing to a deeply discounted rate that all but eliminated the monetary advantages of the move.

This wasn't terribly different from SMU's situation with the ACC. They bought their way into a more prestigious league that didn't really covet them.

Florida State and Clemson might be able to do the same thing. But the larger these leagues grow, the less likely that becomes because it gets more and more difficult to bring pro-rata value. And all of these teams that are taking discounts now will want full value in the next round of TV negotiations, which will likely come in a tighter market than the last one they negotiated in.

PartyBear said:

---

I suspect just like with Oregon and UW except that was with the B10, that Clemson and FSU will be invited to the SEC on a reduced rate basis right before they are about to announce a move to the XII. Like then with UW and O, the XII will actually be expecting something like this to occur and will promptly announce the 2-4 they will take from the ACC. The XII I think will end up with a good quality expansion.

---

There are two factors here worth mentioning.

1. The SEC has never done unequal payouts. That idea is frankly antithetical to the culture that conference has built and sustained throughout its history. Say what you want about the SEC, but a) it treats all its members as equals and b) it doesn't need to add anyone to strengthen its position in college football. There's always a chance it could decide to expand with those two and further strengthen its stranglehold the sport and its geographical region. But it doesn't need to, so any move it makes will be based on bottom line value added and that alone. Do Florida State and/or Clemson add $70 million apiece to the TV contract to be self-sustaining members of the SEC? Probably not.

2. The Big Ten's academic standards and priorities are very real, and the lack of AAU membership likely disqualifies Florida State and Clemson from inclusion. There's only one school in the Big Ten that's not a member of the AAU and that's Nebraska, which was a member when it was added to the league. I don't see the Big Ten adding two schools well outside of its geographic footprint and academic profile just to get better at football. That could change if Florida State and/or Clemson take a deep enough discount, but at that point, it's another SMU situation.

The biggest problem in both cases is that neither Florida State or Clemson are worth full shares at the per-year payout cost of the new TV deals for the SEC and Big Ten. Notre Dame is the only remaining school that is, though both the Big Ten and SEC would likely fight over UNC and Virginia for different reasons.

bossbowman said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Big Ten, SEC unlikely to add Florida State if it leaves ACC & ACC survives, sources told @ActionNetworkHQ. Big Ten & SEC don’t want FSU because adding FSU doesn’t make financial sense, no desire to expand & “they’ve been a disruptive partner,” sources said https://t.co/YhOPDC3O1k

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) July 16, 2024

---

been a disruptive partner?!, did SEC not do a background check on the whorns?

---

Ever heard of the hotness/crazy scale?

I despise Texas, but they bring enough brand value to a conference to accept/overlook their bull***** Florida State does not.

FLBear5630 said:

---

tmcats said:

---

the sec not taking fsu after bringing texas claiming the former "disruptive" is certainly irony on steroids.

all that matters today, history and revisionism aside, is that the b12 will be equal to the b10 and approaching sec status if clemson and fsu are lured into the league.

---

I said for years, Florida will not allow FSU or Miami into the SEC. UF runs the State. People said money talks, not in the SEC there is so much money there that other things that other Conferences don't have the luxury of addressing. SEC don't need any other schools, including Texas, to print money.

---

ESPN will ALSO not want to pay x2-3 for any ACC schools already on a bargain contract for 15 years.

bear2be2 said:

---

bossbowman said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Big Ten, SEC unlikely to add Florida State if it leaves ACC & ACC survives, sources told @ActionNetworkHQ. Big Ten & SEC don’t want FSU because adding FSU doesn’t make financial sense, no desire to expand & “they’ve been a disruptive partner,” sources said https://t.co/YhOPDC3O1k

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) July 16, 2024

---

been a disruptive partner?!, did SEC not do a background check on the whorns?

---

Ever heard of the hotness/crazy scale?

I despise Texas, but they bring enough brand value to a conference to accept/overlook their bull***** Florida State does not.

---

They bring enough for inclusion, such as we are seeing in the SEC. What the SEC will not do is let Texas do its backroom maneuvering and tantrum throwing to get its way.

Texas may be successful on the field. But they will not break up the Big 6 (Bama, Tenn, UGA, Auburn, UF and LSU) that is a block that has been standing since 1932. The other wild cards are the old SWC teams that are not too happy about UT being there - Ark and A&M. That right there is 8 votes. I may even throw in Mizzou, since they hated UT in the B12!

She may be hot and it may be fun looking at from a distance as she brings in the TV dollars, but to live with her???? It will get old. This should be fun!

Saban already sent the first message. That is what is different living in the deep south, they are not direct. You have to decipher what they are saying. I took it as we have a good thing, we ain't letting you **** it up... Saban didn't say go undefeated, he said "run" the SEC.

FLBear5630 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

bossbowman said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Big Ten, SEC unlikely to add Florida State if it leaves ACC & ACC survives, sources told @ActionNetworkHQ. Big Ten & SEC don’t want FSU because adding FSU doesn’t make financial sense, no desire to expand & “they’ve been a disruptive partner,” sources said https://t.co/YhOPDC3O1k

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) July 16, 2024

---

been a disruptive partner?!, did SEC not do a background check on the whorns?

---

Ever heard of the hotness/crazy scale?

I despise Texas, but they bring enough brand value to a conference to accept/overlook their bull***** Florida State does not.

---

They bring enough for inclusion, such as we are seeing in the SEC. What the SEC will not do is let Texas do its backroom maneuvering and tantrum throwing to get its way.

Texas may be successful on the field. But they will not break up the Big 6 (Bama, Tenn, UGA, Auburn, UF and LSU) that is a block that has been standing since 1932. The other wild cards are the old SWC teams that are not too happy about UT being there - Ark and A&M. That right there is 8 votes. I may even throw in Mizzou, since they hated UT in the B12!

She may be hot and it may be fun looking at from a distance as she brings in the TV dollars, but to live with her???? It will get old. This should be fun!

Saban already sent the first message. That is what is different living in the deep south, they are not direct. You have to decipher what they are saying. I took it as we have a good thing, we ain't letting you **** it up... Saban didn't say go undefeated, he said "run" the SEC.

---

I agree there. The SEC is strong enough institutionally to keep Texas from gaining/holding the outsized power it had it in its last two conferences.

That won't, however, keep those *******s from trying to swing their dicks at every opportunity. They'll still be a headache for that reason. But it's a more manageable headache for the SEC. And one they'll gladly put up with for the benefits Texas brings.

bear2be2 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

bossbowman said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Big Ten, SEC unlikely to add Florida State if it leaves ACC & ACC survives, sources told @ActionNetworkHQ. Big Ten & SEC don’t want FSU because adding FSU doesn’t make financial sense, no desire to expand & “they’ve been a disruptive partner,” sources said https://t.co/YhOPDC3O1k

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) July 16, 2024

---

been a disruptive partner?!, did SEC not do a background check on the whorns?

---

Ever heard of the hotness/crazy scale?

I despise Texas, but they bring enough brand value to a conference to accept/overlook their bull***** Florida State does not.

---

They bring enough for inclusion, such as we are seeing in the SEC. What the SEC will not do is let Texas do its backroom maneuvering and tantrum throwing to get its way.

Texas may be successful on the field. But they will not break up the Big 6 (Bama, Tenn, UGA, Auburn, UF and LSU) that is a block that has been standing since 1932. The other wild cards are the old SWC teams that are not too happy about UT being there - Ark and A&M. That right there is 8 votes. I may even throw in Mizzou, since they hated UT in the B12!

She may be hot and it may be fun looking at from a distance as she brings in the TV dollars, but to live with her???? It will get old. This should be fun!

Saban already sent the first message. That is what is different living in the deep south, they are not direct. You have to decipher what they are saying. I took it as we have a good thing, we ain't letting you **** it up... Saban didn't say go undefeated, he said "run" the SEC.

---

I agree there. The SEC is strong enough institutionally to keep Texas from gaining/holding the outsized power it had it in its last two conferences.

That won't, however, keep those *******s from trying to swing their dicks at every opportunity. They'll still be a headache for that reason. But it's a more manageable headache for the SEC. And one they'll gladly put up with for the benefits Texas brings.

---

Oh yeah, the hottie is worth keeping around unless they become an embarrassment. UT won't do that, where is better? SEC is a better cultural fit. Nah, they will just hold their breath and stomp feet, nothing too awful.

tmcats said:

---

the sec not taking fsu after bringing texas claiming the former "disruptive" is certainly irony on steroids.

all that matters today, history and revisionism aside, is that the b12 will be equal to the b10 and approaching sec status if clemson and fsu are lured into the league.

---

Only as equals.

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

historian said:

---

Bear2014 said:

---

SEC wants new territory. If they expand, it'll be UNC/NC State or UVa/VT

---

Do they really want to expand further? Is that speculation or have the SEC leaders actually said something like that?

---

Popular internet speculation. Not as sensible speculation either, since brand on brand matchups matter more than "territory" in the world of streaming. Clemson vs Georgia, FSU vs Alabama - those are ratings monsters. UVa vs, well, anyone = not so much.

---

This is exactly why the smoke around Clemson/FSU being excluded from the P2 makes no sense. It makes as much sense as the arguments against Oregon/Washington joining the B1G - sure, they took lower payouts because the alternative options were not attractive, but that realignment was inevitable after USC/UCLA joined the B1G.

---

The lower payout is no small detail. They don't get in the Big Ten without agreeing to a deeply discounted rate that all but eliminated the monetary advantages of the move.

---

This take ignores the obvious: What was the alternative?

Either (1) decreased payouts in the PAC without USC and UCLA or (2) join the Big 12 and make roughly the same media they would made in the B1G? Make no mistake - (a) they will make more money overall on an annual basis in the B1G than they would have made in either of the two alternative options (inclusive of all revenue streams) and (b) even if (a) wasn't true, they have seats at the P2 table that guarantees them access to the highest levels of college football in a manner that every other team in division 1A would dream of.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

historian said:

---

Bear2014 said:

---

SEC wants new territory. If they expand, it'll be UNC/NC State or UVa/VT

---

Do they really want to expand further? Is that speculation or have the SEC leaders actually said something like that?

---

Popular internet speculation. Not as sensible speculation either, since brand on brand matchups matter more than "territory" in the world of streaming. Clemson vs Georgia, FSU vs Alabama - those are ratings monsters. UVa vs, well, anyone = not so much.

---

This is exactly why the smoke around Clemson/FSU being excluded from the P2 makes no sense. It makes as much sense as the arguments against Oregon/Washington joining the B1G - sure, they took lower payouts because the alternative options were not attractive, but that realignment was inevitable after USC/UCLA joined the B1G.

---

The lower payout is no small detail. They don't get in the Big Ten without agreeing to a deeply discounted rate that all but eliminated the monetary advantages of the move.

---

This take ignores the obvious: What was the alternative?

Either (1) decreased payouts in the PAC without USC and UCLA or (2) join the Big 12 and make roughly the same media they would made in the B1G? Make no mistake - (a) they will make more money overall on an annual basis in the B1G than they would have made in either of the two alternative options (inclusive of all revenue streams) and (b) even if (a) wasn't true, they have seats at the P2 table that guarantees them access to the highest levels of college football in a manner that every other team in division 1A would dream of.

---

I'm not ignoring anything. I don't blame Oregon or Washington for making the decisions they did. But the lower payout is the headline, not the subhead.

Those schools weren't on the Big Ten's shopping list. They were found in the bargain bin with a really good price tag. And with that deep discount likely comes second-class status in the Big Ten for at least the life of the league's next TV deal.

The same would be true of Florida State and Clemson if they choose the same route.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

historian said:

---

Bear2014 said:

---

SEC wants new territory. If they expand, it'll be UNC/NC State or UVa/VT

---

Do they really want to expand further? Is that speculation or have the SEC leaders actually said something like that?

---

Popular internet speculation. Not as sensible speculation either, since brand on brand matchups matter more than "territory" in the world of streaming. Clemson vs Georgia, FSU vs Alabama - those are ratings monsters. UVa vs, well, anyone = not so much.

---

This is exactly why the smoke around Clemson/FSU being excluded from the P2 makes no sense. It makes as much sense as the arguments against Oregon/Washington joining the B1G - sure, they took lower payouts because the alternative options were not attractive, but that realignment was inevitable after USC/UCLA joined the B1G.

---

The lower payout is no small detail. They don't get in the Big Ten without agreeing to a deeply discounted rate that all but eliminated the monetary advantages of the move.

---

This take ignores the obvious: What was the alternative?

Either (1) decreased payouts in the PAC without USC and UCLA or (2) join the Big 12 and make roughly the same media they would made in the B1G? Make no mistake - (a) they will make more money overall on an annual basis in the B1G than they would have made in either of the two alternative options (inclusive of all revenue streams) and (b) even if (a) wasn't true, they have seats at the P2 table that guarantees them access to the highest levels of college football in a manner that every other team in division 1A would dream of.

---

You make a good point, sometimes it is not about the payout. Access and fit will play into the equation as the money gets high enough. The BIG and SEC are in that world now, taking the BIG payout plus Access is worth more than a slightly higher payout somewhere else. Watch Texas, if the cause enough problems the SEC will not kill the Golden Goose to keep Austin happy as they can make enough without them.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

historian said:

---

Bear2014 said:

---

SEC wants new territory. If they expand, it'll be UNC/NC State or UVa/VT

---

Do they really want to expand further? Is that speculation or have the SEC leaders actually said something like that?

---

Popular internet speculation. Not as sensible speculation either, since brand on brand matchups matter more than "territory" in the world of streaming. Clemson vs Georgia, FSU vs Alabama - those are ratings monsters. UVa vs, well, anyone = not so much.

---

This is exactly why the smoke around Clemson/FSU being excluded from the P2 makes no sense. It makes as much sense as the arguments against Oregon/Washington joining the B1G - sure, they took lower payouts because the alternative options were not attractive, but that realignment was inevitable after USC/UCLA joined the B1G.

---

The lower payout is no small detail. They don't get in the Big Ten without agreeing to a deeply discounted rate that all but eliminated the monetary advantages of the move.

---

This take ignores the obvious: What was the alternative?

Either (1) decreased payouts in the PAC without USC and UCLA or (2) join the Big 12 and make roughly the same media they would made in the B1G? Make no mistake - (a) they will make more money overall on an annual basis in the B1G than they would have made in either of the two alternative options (inclusive of all revenue streams) and (b) even if (a) wasn't true, they have seats at the P2 table that guarantees them access to the highest levels of college football in a manner that every other team in division 1A would dream of.

---

You make a good point, sometimes it is not about the payout. Access and fit will play into the equation as the money gets high enough. The BIG and SEC are in that world now, taking the BIG payout plus Access is worth more than a slightly higher payout somewhere else. Watch Texas, if the cause enough problems the SEC will not kill the Golden Goose to keep Austin happy as they can make enough without them.

---

My counterpoint to this is that programs like Oregon, Washington, Florida State and Clemson would add legitimacy to a non-P2 league and have an easier path to maintaining their brand relevance -- which, in all cases, has been built on on-field success, not traditional blue blood status.

If you're not getting Big Ten or SEC money, you'd be better off being the big dog in a "lesser" league and making the playoff twice as often.

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

historian said:

---

Bear2014 said:

---

SEC wants new territory. If they expand, it'll be UNC/NC State or UVa/VT

---

Do they really want to expand further? Is that speculation or have the SEC leaders actually said something like that?

---

Popular internet speculation. Not as sensible speculation either, since brand on brand matchups matter more than "territory" in the world of streaming. Clemson vs Georgia, FSU vs Alabama - those are ratings monsters. UVa vs, well, anyone = not so much.

---

This is exactly why the smoke around Clemson/FSU being excluded from the P2 makes no sense. It makes as much sense as the arguments against Oregon/Washington joining the B1G - sure, they took lower payouts because the alternative options were not attractive, but that realignment was inevitable after USC/UCLA joined the B1G.

---

The lower payout is no small detail. They don't get in the Big Ten without agreeing to a deeply discounted rate that all but eliminated the monetary advantages of the move.

---

This take ignores the obvious: What was the alternative?

Either (1) decreased payouts in the PAC without USC and UCLA or (2) join the Big 12 and make roughly the same media they would made in the B1G? Make no mistake - (a) they will make more money overall on an annual basis in the B1G than they would have made in either of the two alternative options (inclusive of all revenue streams) and (b) even if (a) wasn't true, they have seats at the P2 table that guarantees them access to the highest levels of college football in a manner that every other team in division 1A would dream of.

---

I'm not ignoring anything. I don't blame Oregon or Washington for making the decisions they did. But the lower payout is the headline, not the subhead.

Those schools weren't on the Big Ten's shopping list. They were found in the bargain bin with a really good price tag. And with that deep discount likely comes second-class status in the Big Ten for at least the life of the league's next TV deal.

The same would be true of Florida State and Clemson if they choose the same route.

---

You act like this lower payout is permanent. It's not. They're 100% on the next media deal.

MT_Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

historian said:

---

Bear2014 said:

---

SEC wants new territory. If they expand, it'll be UNC/NC State or UVa/VT

---

Do they really want to expand further? Is that speculation or have the SEC leaders actually said something like that?

---

Popular internet speculation. Not as sensible speculation either, since brand on brand matchups matter more than "territory" in the world of streaming. Clemson vs Georgia, FSU vs Alabama - those are ratings monsters. UVa vs, well, anyone = not so much.

---

This is exactly why the smoke around Clemson/FSU being excluded from the P2 makes no sense. It makes as much sense as the arguments against Oregon/Washington joining the B1G - sure, they took lower payouts because the alternative options were not attractive, but that realignment was inevitable after USC/UCLA joined the B1G.

---

The lower payout is no small detail. They don't get in the Big Ten without agreeing to a deeply discounted rate that all but eliminated the monetary advantages of the move.

---

This take ignores the obvious: What was the alternative?

Either (1) decreased payouts in the PAC without USC and UCLA or (2) join the Big 12 and make roughly the same media they would made in the B1G? Make no mistake - (a) they will make more money overall on an annual basis in the B1G than they would have made in either of the two alternative options (inclusive of all revenue streams) and (b) even if (a) wasn't true, they have seats at the P2 table that guarantees them access to the highest levels of college football in a manner that every other team in division 1A would dream of.

---

I'm not ignoring anything. I don't blame Oregon or Washington for making the decisions they did. But the lower payout is the headline, not the subhead.

Those schools weren't on the Big Ten's shopping list. They were found in the bargain bin with a really good price tag. And with that deep discount likely comes second-class status in the Big Ten for at least the life of the league's next TV deal.

The same would be true of Florida State and Clemson if they choose the same route.

---

You act like this lower payout is permanent. It's not. They're 100% on the next media deal.

---

And what system will be in effect then?

FLBear5630 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

historian said:

---

Bear2014 said:

---

SEC wants new territory. If they expand, it'll be UNC/NC State or UVa/VT

---

Do they really want to expand further? Is that speculation or have the SEC leaders actually said something like that?

---

Popular internet speculation. Not as sensible speculation either, since brand on brand matchups matter more than "territory" in the world of streaming. Clemson vs Georgia, FSU vs Alabama - those are ratings monsters. UVa vs, well, anyone = not so much.

---

This is exactly why the smoke around Clemson/FSU being excluded from the P2 makes no sense. It makes as much sense as the arguments against Oregon/Washington joining the B1G - sure, they took lower payouts because the alternative options were not attractive, but that realignment was inevitable after USC/UCLA joined the B1G.

---

The lower payout is no small detail. They don't get in the Big Ten without agreeing to a deeply discounted rate that all but eliminated the monetary advantages of the move.

---

This take ignores the obvious: What was the alternative?

Either (1) decreased payouts in the PAC without USC and UCLA or (2) join the Big 12 and make roughly the same media they would made in the B1G? Make no mistake - (a) they will make more money overall on an annual basis in the B1G than they would have made in either of the two alternative options (inclusive of all revenue streams) and (b) even if (a) wasn't true, they have seats at the P2 table that guarantees them access to the highest levels of college football in a manner that every other team in division 1A would dream of.

---

I'm not ignoring anything. I don't blame Oregon or Washington for making the decisions they did. But the lower payout is the headline, not the subhead.

Those schools weren't on the Big Ten's shopping list. They were found in the bargain bin with a really good price tag. And with that deep discount likely comes second-class status in the Big Ten for at least the life of the league's next TV deal.

The same would be true of Florida State and Clemson if they choose the same route.

---

You act like this lower payout is permanent. It's not. They're 100% on the next media deal.

---

And what system will be in effect then?

---

Good question, but would it matter? Washington and Oregon are guaranteed both access and financial consideration at the highest level of college football, so how the rest of the landscape is packaged really won't matter to them - or the rest of the B1G/SEC - that much.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

historian said:

---

Bear2014 said:

---

SEC wants new territory. If they expand, it'll be UNC/NC State or UVa/VT

---

Do they really want to expand further? Is that speculation or have the SEC leaders actually said something like that?

---

Popular internet speculation. Not as sensible speculation either, since brand on brand matchups matter more than "territory" in the world of streaming. Clemson vs Georgia, FSU vs Alabama - those are ratings monsters. UVa vs, well, anyone = not so much.

---

This is exactly why the smoke around Clemson/FSU being excluded from the P2 makes no sense. It makes as much sense as the arguments against Oregon/Washington joining the B1G - sure, they took lower payouts because the alternative options were not attractive, but that realignment was inevitable after USC/UCLA joined the B1G.

---

The lower payout is no small detail. They don't get in the Big Ten without agreeing to a deeply discounted rate that all but eliminated the monetary advantages of the move.

---

This take ignores the obvious: What was the alternative?

Either (1) decreased payouts in the PAC without USC and UCLA or (2) join the Big 12 and make roughly the same media they would made in the B1G? Make no mistake - (a) they will make more money overall on an annual basis in the B1G than they would have made in either of the two alternative options (inclusive of all revenue streams) and (b) even if (a) wasn't true, they have seats at the P2 table that guarantees them access to the highest levels of college football in a manner that every other team in division 1A would dream of.

---

I'm not ignoring anything. I don't blame Oregon or Washington for making the decisions they did. But the lower payout is the headline, not the subhead.

Those schools weren't on the Big Ten's shopping list. They were found in the bargain bin with a really good price tag. And with that deep discount likely comes second-class status in the Big Ten for at least the life of the league's next TV deal.

The same would be true of Florida State and Clemson if they choose the same route.

---

You act like this lower payout is permanent. It's not. They're 100% on the next media deal.

---

And what system will be in effect then?

---

Good question, but would it matter? Washington and Oregon are guaranteed both access and financial consideration at the highest level of college football, so how the rest of the landscape is packaged really won't matter to them - or the rest of the B1G/SEC - that much.

---

Well, I am not sure the current system can survive for College Athletics as a whole. It is getting harder and harder for the have nots to compete. If it turns into a "pro" league will people still watch? Every "pro" league that has tried to succeed has failed. Are they turning College Football into the USFL? They seem to be trying. What made CFB so great was that Baylor grads had a team to root for against the UTs. No one expects to win consistently against Goliath, but those 3 out of 10 seasons made it special. If they move to 36 team league at the highest level, will most of College care who wins?

Keep in mind, I think that the Powers that be know this and are hedging their bets. They are moving toward gambling as a revenue source. They are doing their best to get people on Draftkings and Fanduel. The money will be driven by gambling more in the future. Because I don't think anyonce cares if UT plays Bama 3 times and who wins when it becomes NFL-lite.

MT_Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

historian said:

---

Bear2014 said:

---

SEC wants new territory. If they expand, it'll be UNC/NC State or UVa/VT

---

Do they really want to expand further? Is that speculation or have the SEC leaders actually said something like that?

---

Popular internet speculation. Not as sensible speculation either, since brand on brand matchups matter more than "territory" in the world of streaming. Clemson vs Georgia, FSU vs Alabama - those are ratings monsters. UVa vs, well, anyone = not so much.

---

This is exactly why the smoke around Clemson/FSU being excluded from the P2 makes no sense. It makes as much sense as the arguments against Oregon/Washington joining the B1G - sure, they took lower payouts because the alternative options were not attractive, but that realignment was inevitable after USC/UCLA joined the B1G.

---

The lower payout is no small detail. They don't get in the Big Ten without agreeing to a deeply discounted rate that all but eliminated the monetary advantages of the move.

---

This take ignores the obvious: What was the alternative?

Either (1) decreased payouts in the PAC without USC and UCLA or (2) join the Big 12 and make roughly the same media they would made in the B1G? Make no mistake - (a) they will make more money overall on an annual basis in the B1G than they would have made in either of the two alternative options (inclusive of all revenue streams) and (b) even if (a) wasn't true, they have seats at the P2 table that guarantees them access to the highest levels of college football in a manner that every other team in division 1A would dream of.

---

I'm not ignoring anything. I don't blame Oregon or Washington for making the decisions they did. But the lower payout is the headline, not the subhead.

Those schools weren't on the Big Ten's shopping list. They were found in the bargain bin with a really good price tag. And with that deep discount likely comes second-class status in the Big Ten for at least the life of the league's next TV deal.

The same would be true of Florida State and Clemson if they choose the same route.

---

You act like this lower payout is permanent. It's not. They're 100% on the next media deal.

---

With cable and OTA television floundering, that likely just means less money for everyone, which is why partial pay structures are stupid and shortsighted to begin with.

Oregon and Washington, like Florida State and Clemson, aren't worth $75-80 million a year on their own. And when the cable bubble really bursts, ESPN, Fox, etc., won't be able to pay that much for any school.

I've said it before about the Big 12, but I believe it applies to every other conference as well. I think all of these leagues just signed the most lucrative TV deal they ever will. These insane per year payouts are only going down from here. Cable is dying and the money's not there in streaming.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

historian said:

---

Bear2014 said:

---

SEC wants new territory. If they expand, it'll be UNC/NC State or UVa/VT

---

Do they really want to expand further? Is that speculation or have the SEC leaders actually said something like that?

---

Popular internet speculation. Not as sensible speculation either, since brand on brand matchups matter more than "territory" in the world of streaming. Clemson vs Georgia, FSU vs Alabama - those are ratings monsters. UVa vs, well, anyone = not so much.

---

This is exactly why the smoke around Clemson/FSU being excluded from the P2 makes no sense. It makes as much sense as the arguments against Oregon/Washington joining the B1G - sure, they took lower payouts because the alternative options were not attractive, but that realignment was inevitable after USC/UCLA joined the B1G.

---

The lower payout is no small detail. They don't get in the Big Ten without agreeing to a deeply discounted rate that all but eliminated the monetary advantages of the move.

---

This take ignores the obvious: What was the alternative?

Either (1) decreased payouts in the PAC without USC and UCLA or (2) join the Big 12 and make roughly the same media they would made in the B1G? Make no mistake - (a) they will make more money overall on an annual basis in the B1G than they would have made in either of the two alternative options (inclusive of all revenue streams) and (b) even if (a) wasn't true, they have seats at the P2 table that guarantees them access to the highest levels of college football in a manner that every other team in division 1A would dream of.

---

I'm not ignoring anything. I don't blame Oregon or Washington for making the decisions they did. But the lower payout is the headline, not the subhead.

Those schools weren't on the Big Ten's shopping list. They were found in the bargain bin with a really good price tag. And with that deep discount likely comes second-class status in the Big Ten for at least the life of the league's next TV deal.

The same would be true of Florida State and Clemson if they choose the same route.

---

You act like this lower payout is permanent. It's not. They're 100% on the next media deal.

---

And what system will be in effect then?

---

Good question, but would it matter? Washington and Oregon are guaranteed both access and financial consideration at the highest level of college football, so how the rest of the landscape is packaged really won't matter to them - or the rest of the B1G/SEC - that much.

---

It will if they, like Nebraska, become a perennial also-ran in the Big Ten and lose the only thing that makes either of their brands relevant nationally.

They can brag all they want about money and access, but access doesn't mean much if you're never in the playoff discussion.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

historian said:

---

Bear2014 said:

---

SEC wants new territory. If they expand, it'll be UNC/NC State or UVa/VT

---

Do they really want to expand further? Is that speculation or have the SEC leaders actually said something like that?

---

Popular internet speculation. Not as sensible speculation either, since brand on brand matchups matter more than "territory" in the world of streaming. Clemson vs Georgia, FSU vs Alabama - those are ratings monsters. UVa vs, well, anyone = not so much.

---

This is exactly why the smoke around Clemson/FSU being excluded from the P2 makes no sense. It makes as much sense as the arguments against Oregon/Washington joining the B1G - sure, they took lower payouts because the alternative options were not attractive, but that realignment was inevitable after USC/UCLA joined the B1G.

---

The lower payout is no small detail. They don't get in the Big Ten without agreeing to a deeply discounted rate that all but eliminated the monetary advantages of the move.

---

This take ignores the obvious: What was the alternative?

Either (1) decreased payouts in the PAC without USC and UCLA or (2) join the Big 12 and make roughly the same media they would made in the B1G? Make no mistake - (a) they will make more money overall on an annual basis in the B1G than they would have made in either of the two alternative options (inclusive of all revenue streams) and (b) even if (a) wasn't true, they have seats at the P2 table that guarantees them access to the highest levels of college football in a manner that every other team in division 1A would dream of.

---

I'm not ignoring anything. I don't blame Oregon or Washington for making the decisions they did. But the lower payout is the headline, not the subhead.

Those schools weren't on the Big Ten's shopping list. They were found in the bargain bin with a really good price tag. And with that deep discount likely comes second-class status in the Big Ten for at least the life of the league's next TV deal.

The same would be true of Florida State and Clemson if they choose the same route.

---

You act like this lower payout is permanent. It's not. They're 100% on the next media deal.

---

And what system will be in effect then?

---

Good question, but would it matter? Washington and Oregon are guaranteed both access and financial consideration at the highest level of college football, so how the rest of the landscape is packaged really won't matter to them - or the rest of the B1G/SEC - that much.

---

Well, I am not sure the current system can survive for College Athletics as a whole. It is getting harder and harder for the have nots to compete. If it turns into a "pro" league will people still watch? Every "pro" league that has tried to succeed has failed. Are they turning College Football into the USFL? They seem to be trying. What made CFB so great was that Baylor grads had a team to root for against the UTs. No one expects to win consistently against Goliath, but those 3 out of 10 seasons made it special. If they move to 36 team league at the highest level, will most of College care who wins?

Keep in mind, I think that the Powers that be know this and are hedging their bets. They are moving toward gambling as a revenue source. They are doing their best to get people on Draftkings and Fanduel. The money will be driven by gambling more in the future. Because I don't think anyonce cares if UT plays Bama 3 times and who wins when it becomes NFL-lite.

---

I don't think we're moving toward a super league for the reasons you mention. A) It's not viable. B) It's not necessary. The SEC and Big Ten are both better off in a system that offers token access to everyone else but is ultimately rigged in their favor.

A 12-, 14-, 16-team playoff comprised primarily of P2 teams is perfect for those leagues. They get most of the benefits of a hard split without the legal quagmire.

bear2be2 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

historian said:

---

Bear2014 said:

---

SEC wants new territory. If they expand, it'll be UNC/NC State or UVa/VT

---

Do they really want to expand further? Is that speculation or have the SEC leaders actually said something like that?

---

Popular internet speculation. Not as sensible speculation either, since brand on brand matchups matter more than "territory" in the world of streaming. Clemson vs Georgia, FSU vs Alabama - those are ratings monsters. UVa vs, well, anyone = not so much.

---

This is exactly why the smoke around Clemson/FSU being excluded from the P2 makes no sense. It makes as much sense as the arguments against Oregon/Washington joining the B1G - sure, they took lower payouts because the alternative options were not attractive, but that realignment was inevitable after USC/UCLA joined the B1G.

---

The lower payout is no small detail. They don't get in the Big Ten without agreeing to a deeply discounted rate that all but eliminated the monetary advantages of the move.

---

This take ignores the obvious: What was the alternative?

Either (1) decreased payouts in the PAC without USC and UCLA or (2) join the Big 12 and make roughly the same media they would made in the B1G? Make no mistake - (a) they will make more money overall on an annual basis in the B1G than they would have made in either of the two alternative options (inclusive of all revenue streams) and (b) even if (a) wasn't true, they have seats at the P2 table that guarantees them access to the highest levels of college football in a manner that every other team in division 1A would dream of.

---

I'm not ignoring anything. I don't blame Oregon or Washington for making the decisions they did. But the lower payout is the headline, not the subhead.

Those schools weren't on the Big Ten's shopping list. They were found in the bargain bin with a really good price tag. And with that deep discount likely comes second-class status in the Big Ten for at least the life of the league's next TV deal.

The same would be true of Florida State and Clemson if they choose the same route.

---

You act like this lower payout is permanent. It's not. They're 100% on the next media deal.

---

And what system will be in effect then?

---

Good question, but would it matter? Washington and Oregon are guaranteed both access and financial consideration at the highest level of college football, so how the rest of the landscape is packaged really won't matter to them - or the rest of the B1G/SEC - that much.

---

Well, I am not sure the current system can survive for College Athletics as a whole. It is getting harder and harder for the have nots to compete. If it turns into a "pro" league will people still watch? Every "pro" league that has tried to succeed has failed. Are they turning College Football into the USFL? They seem to be trying. What made CFB so great was that Baylor grads had a team to root for against the UTs. No one expects to win consistently against Goliath, but those 3 out of 10 seasons made it special. If they move to 36 team league at the highest level, will most of College care who wins?

Keep in mind, I think that the Powers that be know this and are hedging their bets. They are moving toward gambling as a revenue source. They are doing their best to get people on Draftkings and Fanduel. The money will be driven by gambling more in the future. Because I don't think anyonce cares if UT plays Bama 3 times and who wins when it becomes NFL-lite.

---

I don't think we're moving toward a super league for the reasons you mention. A) It's not viable. B) It's not necessary. The SEC and Big Ten are both better off in a system that offers token access to everyone else but is ultimately rigged in their favor.

A 12-, 14-, 16-team playoff comprised primarily of P2 teams is perfect for those leagues. They get most of the benefits of a hard split without the legal quagmire.

---

I agree, they need to move to a Final 4 format if they are looking to maximize dollars and restrict entrance. A 16 team playoff will do it, lets face it #20 is not winning the whole thing in football. The underdog story IS college football. A Villonova is what mesmorizes the Nation. Having that shot, is money.

I think the FSU and Clemson snub, is actually a positive. They know they have to keep some viable conferences. Goliath is not fun without a David.

FLBear5630 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

historian said:

---

Bear2014 said:

---

SEC wants new territory. If they expand, it'll be UNC/NC State or UVa/VT

---

Do they really want to expand further? Is that speculation or have the SEC leaders actually said something like that?

---

Popular internet speculation. Not as sensible speculation either, since brand on brand matchups matter more than "territory" in the world of streaming. Clemson vs Georgia, FSU vs Alabama - those are ratings monsters. UVa vs, well, anyone = not so much.

---

This is exactly why the smoke around Clemson/FSU being excluded from the P2 makes no sense. It makes as much sense as the arguments against Oregon/Washington joining the B1G - sure, they took lower payouts because the alternative options were not attractive, but that realignment was inevitable after USC/UCLA joined the B1G.

---

The lower payout is no small detail. They don't get in the Big Ten without agreeing to a deeply discounted rate that all but eliminated the monetary advantages of the move.

---

This take ignores the obvious: What was the alternative?

Either (1) decreased payouts in the PAC without USC and UCLA or (2) join the Big 12 and make roughly the same media they would made in the B1G? Make no mistake - (a) they will make more money overall on an annual basis in the B1G than they would have made in either of the two alternative options (inclusive of all revenue streams) and (b) even if (a) wasn't true, they have seats at the P2 table that guarantees them access to the highest levels of college football in a manner that every other team in division 1A would dream of.

---

I'm not ignoring anything. I don't blame Oregon or Washington for making the decisions they did. But the lower payout is the headline, not the subhead.

Those schools weren't on the Big Ten's shopping list. They were found in the bargain bin with a really good price tag. And with that deep discount likely comes second-class status in the Big Ten for at least the life of the league's next TV deal.

The same would be true of Florida State and Clemson if they choose the same route.

---

You act like this lower payout is permanent. It's not. They're 100% on the next media deal.

---

And what system will be in effect then?

---

Good question, but would it matter? Washington and Oregon are guaranteed both access and financial consideration at the highest level of college football, so how the rest of the landscape is packaged really won't matter to them - or the rest of the B1G/SEC - that much.

---

Well, I am not sure the current system can survive for College Athletics as a whole. It is getting harder and harder for the have nots to compete. If it turns into a "pro" league will people still watch? Every "pro" league that has tried to succeed has failed. Are they turning College Football into the USFL? They seem to be trying. What made CFB so great was that Baylor grads had a team to root for against the UTs. No one expects to win consistently against Goliath, but those 3 out of 10 seasons made it special. If they move to 36 team league at the highest level, will most of College care who wins?

Keep in mind, I think that the Powers that be know this and are hedging their bets. They are moving toward gambling as a revenue source. They are doing their best to get people on Draftkings and Fanduel. The money will be driven by gambling more in the future. Because I don't think anyonce cares if UT plays Bama 3 times and who wins when it becomes NFL-lite.

---

I don't think we're moving toward a super league for the reasons you mention. A) It's not viable. B) It's not necessary. The SEC and Big Ten are both better off in a system that offers token access to everyone else but is ultimately rigged in their favor.

A 12-, 14-, 16-team playoff comprised primarily of P2 teams is perfect for those leagues. They get most of the benefits of a hard split without the legal quagmire.

---

I agree, they need to move to a Final 4 format if they are looking to maximize dollars and restrict entrance. A 16 team playoff will do it, lets face it #20 is not winning the whole thing in football. The underdog story IS college football. A Villonova is what mesmorizes the Nation. Having that shot, is money.

I think the FSU and Clemson snub, is actually a positive. They know they have to keep some viable conferences. Goliath is not fun without a David.

---

I think a lot of people miss this, they want to keep a second tier worth watching. A significant portion of the country did not attend the B10 or SEC schools. Overall interest will decline if there is no good 2nd tier that has the chance at upsetting the big dogs.

If B12 takes FSU and Clemson, I sure hope they are smart enough to put in strong exit clause language. We need to be getting paid more from schools that opt to exit.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

historian said:

---

Bear2014 said:

---

SEC wants new territory. If they expand, it'll be UNC/NC State or UVa/VT

---

Do they really want to expand further? Is that speculation or have the SEC leaders actually said something like that?

---

Popular internet speculation. Not as sensible speculation either, since brand on brand matchups matter more than "territory" in the world of streaming. Clemson vs Georgia, FSU vs Alabama - those are ratings monsters. UVa vs, well, anyone = not so much.

---

This is exactly why the smoke around Clemson/FSU being excluded from the P2 makes no sense. It makes as much sense as the arguments against Oregon/Washington joining the B1G - sure, they took lower payouts because the alternative options were not attractive, but that realignment was inevitable after USC/UCLA joined the B1G.

---

The lower payout is no small detail. They don't get in the Big Ten without agreeing to a deeply discounted rate that all but eliminated the monetary advantages of the move.

---

This take ignores the obvious: What was the alternative?

Either (1) decreased payouts in the PAC without USC and UCLA or (2) join the Big 12 and make roughly the same media they would made in the B1G? Make no mistake - (a) they will make more money overall on an annual basis in the B1G than they would have made in either of the two alternative options (inclusive of all revenue streams) and (b) even if (a) wasn't true, they have seats at the P2 table that guarantees them access to the highest levels of college football in a manner that every other team in division 1A would dream of.

---

I'm not ignoring anything. I don't blame Oregon or Washington for making the decisions they did. But the lower payout is the headline, not the subhead.

Those schools weren't on the Big Ten's shopping list. They were found in the bargain bin with a really good price tag. And with that deep discount likely comes second-class status in the Big Ten for at least the life of the league's next TV deal.

The same would be true of Florida State and Clemson if they choose the same route.

---

You act like this lower payout is permanent. It's not. They're 100% on the next media deal.

---

And what system will be in effect then?

---

Good question, but would it matter? Washington and Oregon are guaranteed both access and financial consideration at the highest level of college football, so how the rest of the landscape is packaged really won't matter to them - or the rest of the B1G/SEC - that much.

---

Well, I am not sure the current system can survive for College Athletics as a whole. It is getting harder and harder for the have nots to compete. If it turns into a "pro" league will people still watch? Every "pro" league that has tried to succeed has failed. Are they turning College Football into the USFL? They seem to be trying. What made CFB so great was that Baylor grads had a team to root for against the UTs. No one expects to win consistently against Goliath, but those 3 out of 10 seasons made it special. If they move to 36 team league at the highest level, will most of College care who wins?

Keep in mind, I think that the Powers that be know this and are hedging their bets. They are moving toward gambling as a revenue source. They are doing their best to get people on Draftkings and Fanduel. The money will be driven by gambling more in the future. Because I don't think anyonce cares if UT plays Bama 3 times and who wins when it becomes NFL-lite.

---

I don't think we're moving toward a super league for the reasons you mention. A) It's not viable. B) It's not necessary. The SEC and Big Ten are both better off in a system that offers token access to everyone else but is ultimately rigged in their favor.

A 12-, 14-, 16-team playoff comprised primarily of P2 teams is perfect for those leagues. They get most of the benefits of a hard split without the legal quagmire.

---

I agree, they need to move to a Final 4 format if they are looking to maximize dollars and restrict entrance. A 16 team playoff will do it, lets face it #20 is not winning the whole thing in football. The underdog story IS college football. A Villonova is what mesmorizes the Nation. Having that shot, is money.

I think the FSU and Clemson snub, is actually a positive. They know they have to keep some viable conferences. Goliath is not fun without a David.

---

I think a lot of people miss this, they want to keep a second tier worth watching. A significant portion of the country did not attend the B10 or SEC schools. Overall interest will decline if there is no good 2nd tier that has the chance at upsetting the big dogs.

If B12 takes FSU and Clemson, I sure hope they are smart enough to put in strong exit clause language. We need to be getting paid more from schools that opt to exit.

---

It would be in everyone's interest to keep the B12 and I think the ACC competitive. The TV is better and more money will be made if a team NOT from the big 2 can do well in the playoff. Otherwise it is USFL without a draft.

Rivalries are funny. I think UGA vs Clemson is much much hotter than say UGA vs lower three quarters of SEC.

FLBear5630 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

historian said:

---

Bear2014 said:

---

SEC wants new territory. If they expand, it'll be UNC/NC State or UVa/VT

---

Do they really want to expand further? Is that speculation or have the SEC leaders actually said something like that?

---

Popular internet speculation. Not as sensible speculation either, since brand on brand matchups matter more than "territory" in the world of streaming. Clemson vs Georgia, FSU vs Alabama - those are ratings monsters. UVa vs, well, anyone = not so much.

---

This is exactly why the smoke around Clemson/FSU being excluded from the P2 makes no sense. It makes as much sense as the arguments against Oregon/Washington joining the B1G - sure, they took lower payouts because the alternative options were not attractive, but that realignment was inevitable after USC/UCLA joined the B1G.

---

The lower payout is no small detail. They don't get in the Big Ten without agreeing to a deeply discounted rate that all but eliminated the monetary advantages of the move.

---

This take ignores the obvious: What was the alternative?

Either (1) decreased payouts in the PAC without USC and UCLA or (2) join the Big 12 and make roughly the same media they would made in the B1G? Make no mistake - (a) they will make more money overall on an annual basis in the B1G than they would have made in either of the two alternative options (inclusive of all revenue streams) and (b) even if (a) wasn't true, they have seats at the P2 table that guarantees them access to the highest levels of college football in a manner that every other team in division 1A would dream of.

---

I'm not ignoring anything. I don't blame Oregon or Washington for making the decisions they did. But the lower payout is the headline, not the subhead.

Those schools weren't on the Big Ten's shopping list. They were found in the bargain bin with a really good price tag. And with that deep discount likely comes second-class status in the Big Ten for at least the life of the league's next TV deal.

The same would be true of Florida State and Clemson if they choose the same route.

---

You act like this lower payout is permanent. It's not. They're 100% on the next media deal.

---

And what system will be in effect then?

---

Good question, but would it matter? Washington and Oregon are guaranteed both access and financial consideration at the highest level of college football, so how the rest of the landscape is packaged really won't matter to them - or the rest of the B1G/SEC - that much.

---

Well, I am not sure the current system can survive for College Athletics as a whole. It is getting harder and harder for the have nots to compete. If it turns into a "pro" league will people still watch? Every "pro" league that has tried to succeed has failed. Are they turning College Football into the USFL? They seem to be trying. What made CFB so great was that Baylor grads had a team to root for against the UTs. No one expects to win consistently against Goliath, but those 3 out of 10 seasons made it special. If they move to 36 team league at the highest level, will most of College care who wins?

Keep in mind, I think that the Powers that be know this and are hedging their bets. They are moving toward gambling as a revenue source. They are doing their best to get people on Draftkings and Fanduel. The money will be driven by gambling more in the future. Because I don't think anyonce cares if UT plays Bama 3 times and who wins when it becomes NFL-lite.

---

I don't think we're moving toward a super league for the reasons you mention. A) It's not viable. B) It's not necessary. The SEC and Big Ten are both better off in a system that offers token access to everyone else but is ultimately rigged in their favor.

A 12-, 14-, 16-team playoff comprised primarily of P2 teams is perfect for those leagues. They get most of the benefits of a hard split without the legal quagmire.

---

I agree, they need to move to a Final 4 format if they are looking to maximize dollars and restrict entrance. A 16 team playoff will do it, lets face it #20 is not winning the whole thing in football. The underdog story IS college football. A Villonova is what mesmorizes the Nation. Having that shot, is money.

I think the FSU and Clemson snub, is actually a positive. They know they have to keep some viable conferences. Goliath is not fun without a David.

---

I think a lot of people miss this, they want to keep a second tier worth watching. A significant portion of the country did not attend the B10 or SEC schools. Overall interest will decline if there is no good 2nd tier that has the chance at upsetting the big dogs.

If B12 takes FSU and Clemson, I sure hope they are smart enough to put in strong exit clause language. We need to be getting paid more from schools that opt to exit.

---

It would be in everyone's interest to keep the B12 and I think the ACC competitive. The TV is better and more money will be made if a team NOT from the big 2 can do well in the playoff. Otherwise it is USFL without a draft.

---

Agreed. Just not sure if the media would prefer having two 2nd tier conferences or just one. Two seems like the better answer, but then again, it comes down to the eyeballs and dollars. ACC will always be wanting more than the B12 and vice versa. So maybe eliminating one reduces some of the costs for them. And if the B12 is big enough, it'll effectively be broken down into at least two "regions" anyway. I guess if the OP is true, then we know the answer.

It will be interesting to see how the Big 12 viewership numbers rank this year against the ACC. I suppose with a much larger geographic footprint the advantage goes to Big 12. I know most TV's in Utah will be on the games. Not sure about Zona. Always thought that area was not the big of NCAA football.

Amazing to see five prior rivals now in SEC and doing better than alot of old SEC. I say this every year and it never turns out to be true but I'd think aggy finishes much higher than 9th

PREDICTED ORDER OF FINISH
School - Points
1. Georgia: 3,330
2. Texas: 3,041
3. Alabama: 2,891
4. Ole Miss: 2,783
5. LSU: 2,322
6. Missouri: 2,240
7. Tennessee: 2,168
8. Oklahoma: 2,022
9. Texas A&M: 1,684
10. Auburn: 1,382
11. Kentucky: 1,371
12. Florida: 1,146
13. South Carolina: 923
14. Arkansas 749
15. Mississippi State: 623
16. Vanderbilt: 293

FLBear5630 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

historian said:

---

Bear2014 said:

---

SEC wants new territory. If they expand, it'll be UNC/NC State or UVa/VT

---

Do they really want to expand further? Is that speculation or have the SEC leaders actually said something like that?

---

Popular internet speculation. Not as sensible speculation either, since brand on brand matchups matter more than "territory" in the world of streaming. Clemson vs Georgia, FSU vs Alabama - those are ratings monsters. UVa vs, well, anyone = not so much.

---

This is exactly why the smoke around Clemson/FSU being excluded from the P2 makes no sense. It makes as much sense as the arguments against Oregon/Washington joining the B1G - sure, they took lower payouts because the alternative options were not attractive, but that realignment was inevitable after USC/UCLA joined the B1G.

---

The lower payout is no small detail. They don't get in the Big Ten without agreeing to a deeply discounted rate that all but eliminated the monetary advantages of the move.

---

This take ignores the obvious: What was the alternative?

Either (1) decreased payouts in the PAC without USC and UCLA or (2) join the Big 12 and make roughly the same media they would made in the B1G? Make no mistake - (a) they will make more money overall on an annual basis in the B1G than they would have made in either of the two alternative options (inclusive of all revenue streams) and (b) even if (a) wasn't true, they have seats at the P2 table that guarantees them access to the highest levels of college football in a manner that every other team in division 1A would dream of.

---

I'm not ignoring anything. I don't blame Oregon or Washington for making the decisions they did. But the lower payout is the headline, not the subhead.

Those schools weren't on the Big Ten's shopping list. They were found in the bargain bin with a really good price tag. And with that deep discount likely comes second-class status in the Big Ten for at least the life of the league's next TV deal.

The same would be true of Florida State and Clemson if they choose the same route.

---

You act like this lower payout is permanent. It's not. They're 100% on the next media deal.

---

And what system will be in effect then?

---

Essentially the same "system" as now, as it pertains to the basics of media rights, and they will be full B1G members alongside Ohio State, Michigan, etc. Big times and big money. Obvious no brainer decision for them to make.

Unfortunately. Someone needs to find a way to end the rigged playoffs, aka the ESPN Blue Blood Invitational.

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Rivalries are funny. I think UGA vs Clemson is much much hotter than say UGA vs lower three quarters of SEC.

---

Well, it wouldn't be hotter than Florida, Auburn, Alabama and Tennessee (currently) so you might be right there.

On a big rival scale, Clemson would rank about 6th on a rivalry scale.

historian said:

---

Unfortunately. Someone needs to find a way to end the rigged playoffs, aka the ESPN Blue Blood Invitational.

---

An expanded playoff will at least guarantee access to a few teams outside of the P2. But that access will always come on the P2 conferences' terms.

The best thing the Big 12 and others can do is get better. The only way to change the narrative and earn more access is to win when given the opportunity.

bear2be2 said:

---

historian said:

---

Unfortunately. Someone needs to find a way to end the rigged playoffs, aka the ESPN Blue Blood Invitational.

---

An expanded playoff will at least guarantee access to a few teams outside of the P2. But that access will always come on the P2 conferences' terms.

The best thing the Big 12 and others can do is get better. The only way to change the narrative and earn more access is to win when given the opportunity.

---

I know you guys think the TCU fiasco was a huge negative. But, they still beat Michigan in the Playoff. Objective people believe they were not good enough to compete to win it, but they were good enough to spoil someone else's day. For a Playoff that is enough, you don't have to win it all just win some. Not being from Texas, my TCU hatred is at least on the spectrum, many here it is off.. They did more than OU!

FLBear5630 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

historian said:

---

Unfortunately. Someone needs to find a way to end the rigged playoffs, aka the ESPN Blue Blood Invitational.

---

An expanded playoff will at least guarantee access to a few teams outside of the P2. But that access will always come on the P2 conferences' terms.

The best thing the Big 12 and others can do is get better. The only way to change the narrative and earn more access is to win when given the opportunity.

---

I know you guys think the TCU fiasco was a huge negative. But, they still beat Michigan in the Playoff. Objective people believe they were not good enough to compete to win it, but they were good enough to spoil someone else's day. For a Playoff that is enough, you don't have to win it all just win some. Not being from Texas, my TCU hatred is at least on the spectrum, many here it is off.. They did more than OU!

---

The thing I like about an expanded playoff is it will create levels of success. In a 12-team playoff, getting to the semifinals will be an achievement that it wasn't in the four-team playoff.

We've seen that in college basketball where getting to the Sweet Sixteen or beyond is lauded. I think the same will happen in football going forward. Winning a playoff game or two will be a big deal, even if you're not winning championships.

bear2be2 said:

---

historian said:

---

Unfortunately. Someone needs to find a way to end the rigged playoffs, aka the ESPN Blue Blood Invitational.

---

An expanded playoff will at least guarantee access to a few teams outside of the P2. But that access will always come on the P2 conferences' terms.

The best thing the Big 12 and others can do is get better. The only way to change the narrative and earn more access is to win when given the opportunity.

---

They just have to outspend the P2.

If schools are willing it's back to them rigging it through subject officiating leans.

That's the best anyone not p2 could hope for