Quote:
Originally Posted by eazyb81
This is pretty ignorant. There has been a ton of conflicting info on the status of a game that doesn't even start for another two years. There has even been speculation that the contract requires the Big 12 to reach 12-14 schools and start a conference championship game, but of course that is not going to be public info.
When information is vague like this, you have to rely on logic - i.e., what would motivate the SEC to agree to a contract with the less desirable Big 12 where their per school payout would be less? That makes zero logical sense. Clearly the situation is fluid, just like additional conference realignment, the SEC Network, the new bowl playoff, additional bowl tie-ins (the SEC is likely going to be the usual ACC opponent in the Orange Bowl), etc.
I don't believe the issue of 14 or 16 schools is a primary concern for the SEC. If the conference did move to 16, it would further strain many historical rivalries that make the SEC the best conference in the country. In fact, moving to a 9 game schedule would resolve many of the concerns about a 14 team SEC, and I continue to believe Slive is dangling that carrot to receive a premium on the SEC Network.
|
Well, now you're speaking from ignorance because there is NO requirement for the B12 to expand. None, zero, nada, zip.
Your second paragraph is even more off the mark. The B12 has the second highest participation rate in NCGs, the SEC didn't have a counterbalance to the B1G/PAC Rose Bowl agreement, which made the B12 the most logical choice to partner with. Further, the contract with the Orange Bowl does not make the SEC the most likely and it puts the SEC almost on par per team with the B12, the B1G make out like bandits.
A 16 team schedule can preserve up to two permanent "out of pod" games, and ensure each team sees each opponent at least once every three years and lets the conference keep 4 OOC games. 14 is a bad number.