(08-10-2016 07:21 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 07:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 10:00 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 09:52 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 09:28 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I think the big question is this.... Are fox and ESPN both upset at the Big 12, or is it just ESPN? I think if they add Houston and Cincy- why would Fox be upset with that? That's 2 cities where they have no college football presence at all. Maybe Cincy with Big 10, but still- not that much.

If it's just ESPN upset, I don't know that things change that much in 10 years.

Oh, and to nzmorange's point about Texas going Indy with B12 getting blown apart. That takes us to 4 conferences. Odds pretty darn good when we go 4 that it becomes a champions only setup. So Texas wouldn't want Indy at that point.

It doesn't take 4 conferences. After GoR's any school can leave as it pleases. I'm not even sure if there is a buyout separate from the GoR.

And I'd be amazed if the SEC/B1G would support champs only - the same goes for ND and UTex. It won't happen.

I would be shocked if we see Texas get the same voting rights with the playoff as Notre Dame has. ND got grandfathered in- Texas won't.

And I actually DO think the Big Ten would support champs only. I think it'd be 3-1 P4 conferences in favor of champs only with only SEC opposing. And the G5 conferences would all be in favor of champs only(since their runner ups would never have any shot of making the playoff a real no-brainer for them).

Texas may not need to have an individual vote to win the issue. There's nothing stopping Texas from making the ACC oppose a champs-only model as a condition of their partial membership. that might be worth it - just to get Texas.

Regardless, I disagree about the B1G - especially if someone in the west gets good. The idea of possibly sending OSU AND M might be enough in and of itself. The SEC sent Alabama (or was it Florida) and LSU - and Arkansas almost finished that season as the #3 team.

The thing is the other 14 schools in the ACC would have no interest in it. They would want it to be champions only. And I don't think they would deviate from that just to get Texas for 5 games.

And no, I think Big Ten would be all for champions only. The only one who would be opposed for sure is the SEC.

I disagree on point 1. The upside would be huge.

Why do you think point 2?

So Texas would get only 5 conference games, get to influence the vote of the ACC, and mooch off the ACC's bowl games. Sorry I just don't see the ACC agreeing to that at all.

The Big Ten has always been a champions only proponent. I don't think they would change that.

The big ten was completely opposed to a champions only model in the creation of this existing playoff process. Completely opposed. So thats not true.

It is quite possible the ACC would be opposed to a champions only model because in the proposed scenario, ND and Texas would be good for business for the ACC. And the Current set up Makes it so that its de-facto champions only, unless you truly have an undeserving champion in the fold, in which case it might simply accepted for the greater good of the playoffs itself.

You yourself tried to make the (flawed, and incorrect) argument that two SEC teams in the bcs championship game lead to the creation of the playoffs. That was bogus, as it was already announced before that game, but the point being since you think others feel that way, why would they worry about The ability of two teams from one conference to get in, when you yourself made the claim it was something they don't want again.

Besides a champions only model opens up a BIG legislative can of worms wth congress, as depending on the number of power conferences remaining, could lock out G5 teams. And if you are not locking them out, and still forcing "selections" of which champions he run, it defeats the purpose of champions only, and uiunmughtn as well leave open the opportunity for a deserving non-champion to at least be considered.