Quote:
Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade
The SEC and B12 split the 80 million equally, they also split the new playoff format equally among the group of five. That means, per school, the B12 is earning more at 10 members than the SEC does at 14. The SEC isn't going to kick members out, so how does it increase its share? Well, if the ACC is "no more", then the group of five becomes a group of four and other conferences will probably expand too, making the per team payout more equal.
I'm not saying the SEC made a mistake in taking MU and A&M. I'm saying the SEC doesn't view 14 as an optimal number for various reasons. In fact, maybe you give me some of the positives for 14?
|
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.