True, but if they don't like it, someone else can bid on it, I believe the Las Vegas bowl would love it.

As a Pac-12 fan, if the Pac or Big were in fact blocking a playoff I would be very frustrated. I think most Pac and Big fans want a playoff and want the best possible Pac/Big matchup in the Rose Bowl. I personally see no issue with Pac 1 playing Big 2 in the RB or vice versa, or even 2v2. Eventually I think that is the direction that will be taken, I just hope it happens sooner rather than later. That would be no more untraditional than when the Big had a no repeat policy in effect. I also think you either go to the playoffs or you play in a bowl, there should not be a path to do both.

(04-25-2012 11:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-25-2012 11:11 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-25-2012 10:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-25-2012 10:19 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-25-2012 10:06 AM)JRsec Wrote:  If the Big 12, SEC, and ACC wanted to form their own playoff ESPN would pay for and televise the games Frank! They need us to exist. We, if forced to, can do it without them and come out just fine. The Big 10 at least has proven that. But never think for one second the South couldn't be just as happy without the participation of the Big 10 or PAC. Having them around is a good thing, but it is not the most important bag of chips in the tailgate party of our lives. JR

They'd pay for it, but would it be two or three times as much as the current system? Would it even be more than the current system? I find you to be a fairly reasonable SEC fan, so I believe that you understand that there's a difference between the on-the-field strength of the SEC (which fans focus upon) with the off-the-field business matters that drive the playoff discussion (which is where the Big Ten has as much or more power than the SEC and the Pac-12 is right behind them). Sure, the fans in the South wouldn't care because they believe that the SEC Championship Game itself should just be declared the national championship game, but they aren't the decision-makers. We're talking about the TV executives in New York and LA that are putting $400 million-plus on the table. They're not going to be putting that amount of money on the table for the prospect of a split national championship just like the Alliance days.

Regardless, I think we're discussing a complete hypothetical. I don't think the Big Ten and Pac-12 are going to decline to participate in the new playoff system. They'll eventually agree to it. However, I also believe that there's going to be some consideration granted to them because of the devaluation of the Rose Bowl. I have no idea what that consideration would be, but no one (not the SEC, not the Big Ten, not anyone else) should be forced to give up something for nothing, and the Rose Bowl is a BIG something.

Frank, I agree with the merits of your argument to a point, but the networks need ad revenue and NCAA football is a low overhead cash cow. They wouldn't give anybody any more money, but they probably would find giving us less hard to do.

Besides this whole hypothetical could have a great ending. Let's say Dodds and Delany continue a polarized posture. The Big 10 and PAC play for a kind of championship between them in the Rose Bowl. The SEC, Big 12, and ACC play for a kind of championship in the South. How much money do you think the Networks would fork out to match the two champions in the best possible plus one imaginable from a profit standpoint? The game would make the networks look like peacemakers. Only the Super Bowl would rival it's ad potential. The conferences involved could split the proceeds after the participants got their share. It would be huge!

The machinations would be worked out to determine the two champions regionally and among the conferences involved. No BS negotiations with independents, or minor conferences. No breakaway needed. Conference expansion could take care of anybody of substance who wanted to get on board and wasn't already. The angle has possibilities to solve intricate differences that negotiations cannot touch.

Now that would bring that nice bag of chips to everybody's tailgate party! JR

I think that the United States should divide itself into two countries, North and South.

That way, each region could have its own TV networks and its own "national championship". That would solve this debate.

The two regions are pretty much separate countries anyway. I grew up in Pennsylvania and live in Louisiana, so I can vouch for that.

The "Red State/Blue State" Presidental election maps in 2000 and 2004 looked remarkably like the Union and Confederate states map in 1861.....

We tried to divide into two countries. But the yankees decided that we were too valuable and wouldn't let us go.

Try again.

(04-25-2012 11:29 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-25-2012 11:11 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-25-2012 10:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-25-2012 10:19 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-25-2012 10:06 AM)JRsec Wrote:  If the Big 12, SEC, and ACC wanted to form their own playoff ESPN would pay for and televise the games Frank! They need us to exist. We, if forced to, can do it without them and come out just fine. The Big 10 at least has proven that. But never think for one second the South couldn't be just as happy without the participation of the Big 10 or PAC. Having them around is a good thing, but it is not the most important bag of chips in the tailgate party of our lives. JR

They'd pay for it, but would it be two or three times as much as the current system? Would it even be more than the current system? I find you to be a fairly reasonable SEC fan, so I believe that you understand that there's a difference between the on-the-field strength of the SEC (which fans focus upon) with the off-the-field business matters that drive the playoff discussion (which is where the Big Ten has as much or more power than the SEC and the Pac-12 is right behind them). Sure, the fans in the South wouldn't care because they believe that the SEC Championship Game itself should just be declared the national championship game, but they aren't the decision-makers. We're talking about the TV executives in New York and LA that are putting $400 million-plus on the table. They're not going to be putting that amount of money on the table for the prospect of a split national championship just like the Alliance days.

Regardless, I think we're discussing a complete hypothetical. I don't think the Big Ten and Pac-12 are going to decline to participate in the new playoff system. They'll eventually agree to it. However, I also believe that there's going to be some consideration granted to them because of the devaluation of the Rose Bowl. I have no idea what that consideration would be, but no one (not the SEC, not the Big Ten, not anyone else) should be forced to give up something for nothing, and the Rose Bowl is a BIG something.

Frank, I agree with the merits of your argument to a point, but the networks need ad revenue and NCAA football is a low overhead cash cow. They wouldn't give anybody any more money, but they probably would find giving us less hard to do.

Besides this whole hypothetical could have a great ending. Let's say Dodds and Delany continue a polarized posture. The Big 10 and PAC play for a kind of championship between them in the Rose Bowl. The SEC, Big 12, and ACC play for a kind of championship in the South. How much money do you think the Networks would fork out to match the two champions in the best possible plus one imaginable from a profit standpoint? The game would make the networks look like peacemakers. Only the Super Bowl would rival it's ad potential. The conferences involved could split the proceeds after the participants got their share. It would be huge!

The machinations would be worked out to determine the two champions regionally and among the conferences involved. No BS negotiations with independents, or minor conferences. No breakaway needed. Conference expansion could take care of anybody of substance who wanted to get on board and wasn't already. The angle has possibilities to solve intricate differences that negotiations cannot touch.

Now that would bring that nice bag of chips to everybody's tailgate party! JR

I think that the United States should divide itself into two countries, North and South.

That way, each region could have its own TV networks and its own "national championship". That would solve this debate.

The two regions are pretty much separate countries anyway. I grew up in Pennsylvania and live in Louisiana, so I can vouch for that.

The "Red State/Blue State" Presidental election maps in 2000 and 2004 looked remarkably like the Union and Confederate states map in 1861.....

Yup....and you see which states are actually growing in population. The Northeast is stagnant and in some cases actually decreasing in population.

In the red states (the vast majority of the south) there's typically less government intrusion on individuals, less (or in many cases zero) union influence over the public / private sector, and lower tax rates.

It's really funny how that works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S...rowth_rate

Nah, I think that it is the sunshine...... and the pretty girls.