Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
sankey interview
Author Message
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 55,086
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 2310
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #1
sankey interview
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...e-football

So he's still in favor of expanding the playoff even if he has to drag some members along. And when he talks about superconferences, he is talking 18 to 20, not 24.


"...So what might get us to superconferences then?

Sankey: It's impossible to answer all the hypotheticals, but we're mindful to what's happening around us. But you don't just make change because it sounds great to be at 18 or 20. You have to think about the right affiliations, opportunities and culture. Part of our work is to support, sustain and magnify a healthy culture, and that's one of the most under-observed realities in college sports today. That informs how we make national decisions. Can we collaborate together?...


Sankey: We've had a lot of change. All of us thinking big-picture has to be rethought, repositioned and reemphasized. But I'll give you an example: The SEC did not need to expand the College Football Playoff early. We didn't pound our fists about it. We looked at our colleague conferences who, rather than play through the 12-year cycle, demanded expansion sooner than later. I think it's a problem we've not had any meaningful West Coast participation in the playoff since 2016. I don't think that's good for college football. [The SEC] didn't need a 12-team playoff, and we certainly didn't need to give conference champions guaranteed access, but that seemed like an enormously healthy step in bringing new participants in and ensuring different regions participate. We can look big-picture, but some didn't want to move. Now we have to go back and rethink our position. We're certainly not perfect, and I'm not going to be altruistic in everything, but that's good evidence that we can think beyond our own needs to figure out how to keep college football strong across the nation...."
08-02-2022 04:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 40,209
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2259
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #2
RE: sankey interview
Thats pretty good news for everyone who is trying to survive in college football outside the cozy confines of the P2.
08-02-2022 04:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 55,086
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 2310
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #3
RE: sankey interview
(08-02-2022 04:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats pretty good news for everyone who is trying to survive in college football outside the cozy confines of the P2.

He doesn't rule out going beyond, but doesn't even seem to be considering it. He answers the questions about superconferences by talking about 18 to 20.
08-02-2022 04:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,611
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 313
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #4
RE: sankey interview
(08-02-2022 04:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...e-football

So he's still in favor of expanding the playoff even if he has to drag some members along. And when he talks about superconferences, he is talking 18 to 20, not 24.


"...So what might get us to superconferences then?

Sankey: It's impossible to answer all the hypotheticals, but we're mindful to what's happening around us. But you don't just make change because it sounds great to be at 18 or 20. You have to think about the right affiliations, opportunities and culture. Part of our work is to support, sustain and magnify a healthy culture, and that's one of the most under-observed realities in college sports today. That informs how we make national decisions. Can we collaborate together?...


Sankey: We've had a lot of change. All of us thinking big-picture has to be rethought, repositioned and reemphasized. But I'll give you an example: The SEC did not need to expand the College Football Playoff early. We didn't pound our fists about it. We looked at our colleague conferences who, rather than play through the 12-year cycle, demanded expansion sooner than later. I think it's a problem we've not had any meaningful West Coast participation in the playoff since 2016. I don't think that's good for college football. [The SEC] didn't need a 12-team playoff, and we certainly didn't need to give conference champions guaranteed access, but that seemed like an enormously healthy step in bringing new participants in and ensuring different regions participate. We can look big-picture, but some didn't want to move. Now we have to go back and rethink our position. We're certainly not perfect, and I'm not going to be altruistic in everything, but that's good evidence that we can think beyond our own needs to figure out how to keep college football strong across the nation...."

In other words, don't blame the SEC for what happens next because they tried to be considerate and it was met with mistrust and accusations.
08-02-2022 05:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoBuckeyes1047 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 364
Joined: Jan 2021
Reputation: 35
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #5
RE: sankey interview
To me, the B1G and SEC competing against each other probably prevents either from reaching 24 teams. I think at most, you could reasonably get to 20-22 teams each, but I think the B1G with help from the Big 12 finishes off the PAC-12 and we end up in a P4 format with the potential for P3 depending how many teams escape the ACC. I think losing 5-6 including ND is survivable for the ACC, but more than 6 probably results in a P3 format.

My gut says the B1G adds ND with 3 PAC-12 schools to get to 20, then ESPN probably persuades the SEC to grab at least 4 of their most attractive ACC schools that benefit the SEC and prevents B1G expansion when the time comes to raid the ACC. I think JRsec just suggested UVA, UNC, Duke, and FSU. Maybe they could even snag Clemson and Kansas and call it a day at 22, but I think 20 would be more preferable to the SEC. I think the only path to 22 teams for the B1G is if they can get 2 of UVA, UNC, and Duke, and the SEC whoever they can add brand wise to get to 22 teams, but I think ESPN and the SEC will prevent the B1G from doing this.

At that point, maybe the ACC nabs WVU, Cincy, UCF, and at least 1 other team to rebuild to 14 teams as a best of the rest east of the Mississippi. I think it should be Memphis, but if ESPN has a say, I think they grab UCONN from FOX/CBS and keep Memphis under ESPN via. AAC. USF could be another team and maybe the ACC grabs all for 16 teams including 3 in Florida. The Big 12 expands to get up to 14-16 teams grabbing the 4 corner schools from the PAC-12 and them 1-3 teams from SDSU, SMU, Boise St., and Memphis (if available).

In summary, I think we get a B1G and SEC with 20-22 teams each while the ACC and Big 12 survive with 14-16 teams each to maintain a P4 format, but I could be wrong.
08-02-2022 05:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
domer1978 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,030
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 281
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Alaska/California
Post: #6
RE: sankey interview
(08-02-2022 05:27 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  To me, the B1G and SEC competing against each other probably prevents either from reaching 24 teams. I think at most, you could reasonably get to 20-22 teams each, but I think the B1G with help from the Big 12 finishes off the PAC-12 and we end up in a P4 format with the potential for P3 depending how many teams escape the ACC. I think losing 5-6 including ND is survivable for the ACC, but more than 6 probably results in a P3 format.

My gut says the B1G adds ND with 3 PAC-12 schools to get to 20, then ESPN probably persuades the SEC to grab at least 4 of their most attractive ACC schools that benefit the SEC and prevents B1G expansion when the time comes to raid the ACC. I think JRsec just suggested UVA, UNC, Duke, and FSU. Maybe they could even snag Clemson and Kansas and call it a day at 22, but I think 20 would be more preferable to the SEC. I think the only path to 22 teams for the B1G is if they can get 2 of UVA, UNC, and Duke, and the SEC whoever they can add brand wise to get to 22 teams, but I think ESPN and the SEC will prevent the B1G from doing this.

At that point, maybe the ACC nabs WVU, Cincy, UCF, and at least 1 other team to rebuild to 14 teams as a best of the rest east of the Mississippi. I think it should be Memphis, but if ESPN has a say, I think they grab UCONN from FOX/CBS and keep Memphis under ESPN via. AAC. USF could be another team and maybe the ACC grabs all for 16 teams including 3 in Florida. The Big 12 expands to get up to 14-16 teams grabbing the 4 corner schools from the PAC-12 and them 1-3 teams from SDSU, SMU, Boise St., and Memphis (if available).

In summary, I think we get a B1G and SEC with 20-22 teams each while the ACC and Big 12 survive with 14-16 teams each to maintain a P4 format, but I could be wrong.
I agree.
08-02-2022 06:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Fresno St. Alum Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,515
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 205
I Root For: Fresno St.
Location: CA
Post: #7
RE: sankey interview
SO if ND says no right now to the B1G, do they still even go to 18 to get more of a western wing and then take a final shot at ND towards the end of the ACC GOR along w/ 1 more? ND says yes do they still go to 20 or just 18 to maximize $$.

SEC sits until the end of the ACC gor and matches the B1G 18 or 20 w/ the same number.
08-02-2022 06:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 40,209
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2259
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #8
RE: sankey interview
(08-02-2022 05:02 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(08-02-2022 04:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...e-football

So he's still in favor of expanding the playoff even if he has to drag some members along. And when he talks about superconferences, he is talking 18 to 20, not 24.


"...So what might get us to superconferences then?

Sankey: It's impossible to answer all the hypotheticals, but we're mindful to what's happening around us. But you don't just make change because it sounds great to be at 18 or 20. You have to think about the right affiliations, opportunities and culture. Part of our work is to support, sustain and magnify a healthy culture, and that's one of the most under-observed realities in college sports today. That informs how we make national decisions. Can we collaborate together?...


Sankey: We've had a lot of change. All of us thinking big-picture has to be rethought, repositioned and reemphasized. But I'll give you an example: The SEC did not need to expand the College Football Playoff early. We didn't pound our fists about it. We looked at our colleague conferences who, rather than play through the 12-year cycle, demanded expansion sooner than later. I think it's a problem we've not had any meaningful West Coast participation in the playoff since 2016. I don't think that's good for college football. [The SEC] didn't need a 12-team playoff, and we certainly didn't need to give conference champions guaranteed access, but that seemed like an enormously healthy step in bringing new participants in and ensuring different regions participate. We can look big-picture, but some didn't want to move. Now we have to go back and rethink our position. We're certainly not perfect, and I'm not going to be altruistic in everything, but that's good evidence that we can think beyond our own needs to figure out how to keep college football strong across the nation...."

In other words, don't blame the SEC for what happens next because they tried to be considerate and it was met with mistrust and accusations.

I think they will offer the 16 team playoff with the same guaranteed slots as before. Its even more advantageous for the SEC than a 12 team model. What could anyone really say at this point? The ones who oppose the original plan would be lucky the autobids were still there at all. The SEC never needed them.
(This post was last modified: 08-02-2022 06:26 PM by Attackcoog.)
08-02-2022 06:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,592
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1039
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #9
RE: sankey interview
(08-02-2022 06:12 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  SO if ND says no right now to the B1G, do they still even go to 18 to get more of a western wing and then take a final shot at ND towards the end of the ACC GOR along w/ 1 more? ND says yes do they still go to 20 or just 18 to maximize $$.

SEC sits until the end of the ACC gor and matches the B1G 18 or 20 w/ the same number.

Personally, I don’t think so for now (meaning the next few years). I think fans in their zeal to see the final form of all these super/mega-conferences underestimate some of the inertia where none of these leagues really want to add entire wings of schools all at one time.

USC and UCLA need to be integrated as Big Ten members first and foremost as opposed to being the “West Coast schools” that they would inevitably grouped with if the B1G invited more Pac-12 schools.

From a pure TV perspective at least as of now, the Big Ten wants as many Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State/Wisconsin vs. USC/UCLA games as possible and those would ALL occur at least 2 times out of every 4 years in a 3-6-6 scheduling format. Every school that gets added will dilute that rotation. I think that has been an underestimated check on expansion - every Big Ten school being guaranteed to visit the LA market at least once every other year is pretty huge in terms of both TV exposure and recruiting.

I’d say the same in the SEC. They’re finally moving to a 3-6-6 format where those Alabama/Texas A&M vs. Georgia/Florida games are played 2 out of every 4 years instead of once every 7 years and they’re integrating Texas and Oklahoma on top of it. Every addition goes back to diluting that rotation, so that makes every expansion school particularly critical.

As much as I’m a realignment guy and I’ll talk about it all day, there’s one thing that I’m somewhat traditionalist on: a conference should still actually have their teams play each other frequently and regularly as opposed to being a CFA-style scheduling arrangement. Once you get past 16 schools, that becomes increasingly difficult unless you start going to 10 conference games or more and effectively eliminate any P5 non-conference opponents completely (which, to be sure, I wouldn’t put past either the Big Ten or SEC in the long term).
08-02-2022 06:28 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RUScarlets Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,216
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 70
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #10
RE: sankey interview
I don't think the geography/format is comparable for the SEC & B1G. If it was a football only move, I can see the lack of concern. The bottom line is... with that "more frequent" circulation, you are going to kill men's and women's BBall for traveling teams. It won't be competitive. I mean look at how skewed the Home vs Away records already are in men's BBall in the B1G... what other sports will be affected similarly? This is soul crushing on every single UCLA/USC student making biweekly trips every semester.
(This post was last modified: 08-02-2022 06:53 PM by RUScarlets.)
08-02-2022 06:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SouthEastAlaska Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,251
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 86
I Root For: UW,PAC12
Location:
Post: #11
RE: sankey interview
(08-02-2022 06:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(08-02-2022 06:12 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  SO if ND says no right now to the B1G, do they still even go to 18 to get more of a western wing and then take a final shot at ND towards the end of the ACC GOR along w/ 1 more? ND says yes do they still go to 20 or just 18 to maximize $$.

SEC sits until the end of the ACC gor and matches the B1G 18 or 20 w/ the same number.

Personally, I don’t think so for now (meaning the next few years). I think fans in their zeal to see the final form of all these super/mega-conferences underestimate some of the inertia where none of these leagues really want to add entire wings of schools all at one time.

USC and UCLA need to be integrated as Big Ten members first and foremost as opposed to being the “West Coast schools” that they would inevitably grouped with if the B1G invited more Pac-12 schools.

From a pure TV perspective at least as of now, the Big Ten wants as many Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State/Wisconsin vs. USC/UCLA games as possible and those would ALL occur at least 2 times out of every 4 years in a 3-6-6 scheduling format. Every school that gets added will dilute that rotation. I think that has been an underestimated check on expansion - every Big Ten school being guaranteed to visit the LA market at least once every other year is pretty huge in terms of both TV exposure and recruiting.

I’d say the same in the SEC. They’re finally moving to a 3-6-6 format where those Alabama/Texas A&M vs. Georgia/Florida games are played 2 out of every 4 years instead of once every 7 years and they’re integrating Texas and Oklahoma on top of it. Every addition goes back to diluting that rotation, so that makes every expansion school particularly critical.

As much as I’m a realignment guy and I’ll talk about it all day, there’s one thing that I’m somewhat traditionalist on: a conference should still actually have their teams play each other frequently and regularly as opposed to being a CFA-style scheduling arrangement. Once you get past 16 schools, that becomes increasingly difficult unless you start going to 10 conference games or more and effectively eliminate any P5 non-conference opponents completely (which, to be sure, I wouldn’t put past either the Big Ten or SEC in the long term).

You might be right about USC/UCLA Frank but if that truly is the case this is one of the most boneheaded expansion moves that has ever happened.

OUT at least makes some kind of sense to the SEC, They're in contiguous states, and there is a history of the SEC flirting with these schools for decades.

USC and UCLA was a money grab and you gutted your brother to do it. You talk about conference integration but it will never happen if you leave them on an island with no partners and 2000 miles to B1G conference HQ and 1500 to their nearest conference rival. It's not sustainable, money is the attraction to get you in the door but if you don't have people like you at your work your attitude sours quickly regardless of how much you make. The B1G will add more schools to avoid this problem or they will have a major headache on their hands.
08-02-2022 07:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


No Bull Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,550
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation: 714
I Root For: UCF
Location: Deadwood
Post: #12
RE: sankey interview
(08-02-2022 05:27 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  To me, the B1G and SEC competing against each other probably prevents either from reaching 24 teams. I think at most, you could reasonably get to 20-22 teams each, but I think the B1G with help from the Big 12 finishes off the PAC-12 and we end up in a P4 format with the potential for P3 depending how many teams escape the ACC. I think losing 5-6 including ND is survivable for the ACC, but more than 6 probably results in a P3 format.

My gut says the B1G adds ND with 3 PAC-12 schools to get to 20, then ESPN probably persuades the SEC to grab at least 4 of their most attractive ACC schools that benefit the SEC and prevents B1G expansion when the time comes to raid the ACC. I think JRsec just suggested UVA, UNC, Duke, and FSU. Maybe they could even snag Clemson and Kansas and call it a day at 22, but I think 20 would be more preferable to the SEC. I think the only path to 22 teams for the B1G is if they can get 2 of UVA, UNC, and Duke, and the SEC whoever they can add brand wise to get to 22 teams, but I think ESPN and the SEC will prevent the B1G from doing this.

At that point, maybe the ACC nabs WVU, Cincy, UCF, and at least 1 other team to rebuild to 14 teams as a best of the rest east of the Mississippi. I think it should be Memphis, but if ESPN has a say, I think they grab UCONN from FOX/CBS and keep Memphis under ESPN via. AAC. USF could be another team and maybe the ACC grabs all for 16 teams including 3 in Florida. The Big 12 expands to get up to 14-16 teams grabbing the 4 corner schools from the PAC-12 and them 1-3 teams from SDSU, SMU, Boise St., and Memphis (if available).

In summary, I think we get a B1G and SEC with 20-22 teams each while the ACC and Big 12 survive with 14-16 teams each to maintain a P4 format, but I could be wrong.

I hate it, but this is how I see it as well. P4. Not sure whether the PAC 12 eats the Big 12 or Vice Versa. The ACC is pretty god awful without the schools listed above.
(This post was last modified: 08-02-2022 07:23 PM by No Bull.)
08-02-2022 07:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,592
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1039
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #13
RE: sankey interview
(08-02-2022 07:11 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  
(08-02-2022 06:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(08-02-2022 06:12 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  SO if ND says no right now to the B1G, do they still even go to 18 to get more of a western wing and then take a final shot at ND towards the end of the ACC GOR along w/ 1 more? ND says yes do they still go to 20 or just 18 to maximize $$.

SEC sits until the end of the ACC gor and matches the B1G 18 or 20 w/ the same number.

Personally, I don’t think so for now (meaning the next few years). I think fans in their zeal to see the final form of all these super/mega-conferences underestimate some of the inertia where none of these leagues really want to add entire wings of schools all at one time.

USC and UCLA need to be integrated as Big Ten members first and foremost as opposed to being the “West Coast schools” that they would inevitably grouped with if the B1G invited more Pac-12 schools.

From a pure TV perspective at least as of now, the Big Ten wants as many Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State/Wisconsin vs. USC/UCLA games as possible and those would ALL occur at least 2 times out of every 4 years in a 3-6-6 scheduling format. Every school that gets added will dilute that rotation. I think that has been an underestimated check on expansion - every Big Ten school being guaranteed to visit the LA market at least once every other year is pretty huge in terms of both TV exposure and recruiting.

I’d say the same in the SEC. They’re finally moving to a 3-6-6 format where those Alabama/Texas A&M vs. Georgia/Florida games are played 2 out of every 4 years instead of once every 7 years and they’re integrating Texas and Oklahoma on top of it. Every addition goes back to diluting that rotation, so that makes every expansion school particularly critical.

As much as I’m a realignment guy and I’ll talk about it all day, there’s one thing that I’m somewhat traditionalist on: a conference should still actually have their teams play each other frequently and regularly as opposed to being a CFA-style scheduling arrangement. Once you get past 16 schools, that becomes increasingly difficult unless you start going to 10 conference games or more and effectively eliminate any P5 non-conference opponents completely (which, to be sure, I wouldn’t put past either the Big Ten or SEC in the long term).

You might be right about USC/UCLA Frank but if that truly is the case this is one of the most boneheaded expansion moves that has ever happened.

OUT at least makes some kind of sense to the SEC, They're in contiguous states, and there is a history of the SEC flirting with these schools for decades.

USC and UCLA was a money grab and you gutted your brother to do it. You talk about conference integration but it will never happen if you leave them on an island with no partners and 2000 miles to B1G conference HQ and 1500 to their nearest conference rival. It's not sustainable, money is the attraction to get you in the door but if you don't have people like you at your work your attitude sours quickly regardless of how much you make. The B1G will add more schools to avoid this problem or they will have a major headache on their hands.

I understand all of what you’re saying. It surprised me that USC and UCLA were able to move without at least Cal and Stanford and I would have thought it would have taken at least 2 other Pac-12 schools, too.

My guess is that the Big Ten simply sees that they can take anyone else from the Pac-12 whenever they want now that they have the LA schools, which is probably true.

By the same token, it’s interesting to hear reports in a few different places that at least USC did NOT want other Pac-12 schools besides UCLA to come along, particularly Oregon. USC may be looking at this more like they’re the “national school” a la their rival of Notre Dame as opposed to a West Coast school and they want the recruiting advantage that comes from being national. That may be delusional and not work, but it was interesting to see that perspective.

It’s a given that this screws all other sports besides football at USC and UCLA. If I were running the Big Ten, I’d actually add Stanford, Cal, Washington and Oregon regardless of what ND does or doesn’t do because, to your point, it’s what makes the expansion at least somewhat more than just two isolated appendages out West and certainly addresses the issues of all other sports.

However, this might be one issue where the Big Ten leadership and I aren’t aligned. I think they’re looking at this as primarily a money grab right now with their soon-to-be record breaking media deal and they’ll adjust to fill out the rest of the league later.
08-02-2022 07:25 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Big 12 fan too Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 874
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 85
I Root For: NIU
Location:
Post: #14
RE: sankey interview
(08-02-2022 07:11 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  
(08-02-2022 06:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(08-02-2022 06:12 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  SO if ND says no right now to the B1G, do they still even go to 18 to get more of a western wing and then take a final shot at ND towards the end of the ACC GOR along w/ 1 more? ND says yes do they still go to 20 or just 18 to maximize $$.

SEC sits until the end of the ACC gor and matches the B1G 18 or 20 w/ the same number.

Personally, I don’t think so for now (meaning the next few years). I think fans in their zeal to see the final form of all these super/mega-conferences underestimate some of the inertia where none of these leagues really want to add entire wings of schools all at one time.

USC and UCLA need to be integrated as Big Ten members first and foremost as opposed to being the “West Coast schools” that they would inevitably grouped with if the B1G invited more Pac-12 schools.

From a pure TV perspective at least as of now, the Big Ten wants as many Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State/Wisconsin vs. USC/UCLA games as possible and those would ALL occur at least 2 times out of every 4 years in a 3-6-6 scheduling format. Every school that gets added will dilute that rotation. I think that has been an underestimated check on expansion - every Big Ten school being guaranteed to visit the LA market at least once every other year is pretty huge in terms of both TV exposure and recruiting.

I’d say the same in the SEC. They’re finally moving to a 3-6-6 format where those Alabama/Texas A&M vs. Georgia/Florida games are played 2 out of every 4 years instead of once every 7 years and they’re integrating Texas and Oklahoma on top of it. Every addition goes back to diluting that rotation, so that makes every expansion school particularly critical.

As much as I’m a realignment guy and I’ll talk about it all day, there’s one thing that I’m somewhat traditionalist on: a conference should still actually have their teams play each other frequently and regularly as opposed to being a CFA-style scheduling arrangement. Once you get past 16 schools, that becomes increasingly difficult unless you start going to 10 conference games or more and effectively eliminate any P5 non-conference opponents completely (which, to be sure, I wouldn’t put past either the Big Ten or SEC in the long term).

You might be right about USC/UCLA Frank but if that truly is the case this is one of the most boneheaded expansion moves that has ever happened.

OUT at least makes some kind of sense to the SEC, They're in contiguous states, and there is a history of the SEC flirting with these schools for decades.

USC and UCLA was a money grab and you gutted your brother to do it. You talk about conference integration but it will never happen if you leave them on an island with no partners and 2000 miles to B1G conference HQ and 1500 to their nearest conference rival. It's not sustainable, money is the attraction to get you in the door but if you don't have people like you at your work your attitude sours quickly regardless of how much you make. The B1G will add more schools to avoid this problem or they will have a major headache on their hands.

What is fast in realignment? Imo it will be under 2 years that we have the major follow-up moves. Warren himself set 5 years as the back stop. That is much faster than we've generally had.

There is a lot of inertia for change, Warren talked about all the disruptions coming to college athletics. NIL, playoff revisions, potential employment, etc. That doesn't even factor in the revenue disparities that has anyone on the outside willing to remove barriers that in previous eras would be prohibitive.

Warren's words:

"Where expansion goes? I don’t know. … I’m embracing change,” Warren explained, “I’m going to be very aggressive. We want to be aggressive in how we build this. We’re in a stage of probably a five-year period of change.”

“We’re in a five-year period of transformation,” Warren said. “Just because these are some of the moves on the front end of the transformation, we won’t really know that until we get toward a conclusion. I think over the next couple of years, it will settle down — the movement between conferences. How many are there? How many are not there? The structure will become clear.

As for Warren’s “five-year transformation period,” he’s unsure how many power conferences will remain.

“That is a question that remains to be seen,” Warren said. “Think of how much more we know today than we did a year ago. Then think a year from now. It will become crystal clear as far as what is the right fit. The market will dictate where things should settle.”


“Regarding expansion, … it may include future expansion. But it will be done for the right reasons, at the right time,” “When I say add value: value is important, but I just look at the fit,” Warren told Action Network Tuesday at Big Ten Media Days. “A fit has to be there academically, has to be there athletically. All those things are really important."


The fit and right reason comments scream they are coming back for more PAC, even though the money is not as good, particularly with Cal and Stanford.
The "market will dictate" comments kind of hint at something like the 4 corners leaving first, then the Big 10 coming in and finishing up the PAC, and seeing what they can shake free from the ACC imo.

And it is impossible to ignore that the BIG/FOX have basically tried drive the 4 corners out of the PAC via making a black whole in the most important market and stoking mass uncertainty thereafter. And not a political whimper for two weeks that UCLA left? That is more than apathy. If you wanted to get 4 corners to leave, you'd block off southern CA, tell them "no" and continually flirt with UW and Oregon, while also leaking Stanford is ND's actual preferred choice. Did UW and Oregon really apply? That almost never happens unless it is likely to be a 'yes'. Someone had reason to feel optimistic.

Just waiting on the market to see what balance of west-east additions occur- how much room is needed for the east imo
(This post was last modified: 08-02-2022 07:54 PM by Big 12 fan too.)
08-02-2022 07:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 30,361
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 4111
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #15
RE: sankey interview
(08-02-2022 04:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(08-02-2022 04:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats pretty good news for everyone who is trying to survive in college football outside the cozy confines of the P2.

He doesn't rule out going beyond, but doesn't even seem to be considering it. He answers the questions about superconferences by talking about 18 to 20.

And this means exactly what? Nada! Rule #1 of expansion. You don't talk about expansion. Rule #2 of expansion. You don't talk about expansion.

Sankey's AD's are saying 20 plus. Sankey will see what the Big 10 does out West before he does anything. If they add 2 more, he'll add 2 more. If they add 4, he'll add four, or add 2 to the West and hold slots for the East.

Until then he'll admit there is a possibility and deny any action. They already know who they accept next. They likely know who they would accept after that. If the Big 10 takes Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford to move to 20, then Sankey knows no slots were spent on the ACC. This could open up a couple of current or past B12 schools. And any ACC interests would be lined up. If the Big Ten attempts a move on the ACC the SEC would be ready to announce in a moment's notice. If not we sit.

Citing these kinds of interviews means practically nothing. Sankey says 18-20, but isn't planning anything now. Standard Operating Procedure for any Commissioner. Warren wanted an Alliance to "stop the power grab" only it really meant "stall things until I can grab some power."

Frank wants to believe intentions are good, and Sankey speaks of the greater good, but one destroyed the Big 12's value and the other the PAC 12's value, and yet you, Frank, and others in denial, pay heed and take hope in these legally obfuscatory declarations while the Big 10 reloads tubes 1-4 to finish off the PAC and Sankey admits 4 more are possible for the SEC.

Well, if the SEC takes 4 valuable ACC targets and Warren finishes taking half of the PAC how can anyone doubt the impact it will have on playoff inclusion? Yes, there will be a catch all tweener conference, but for how long? Until present contracts expire, or the best of that conference are absorbed as well.

Nonsense to me is the extreme denial of what is going on as you watch it happening and after being wrong about the Big 10 raiding the PAC and calling the concept nonsense and fanatical, I would expect Frank to be a bit more judicious and cautious as to his stances, especially as credible sources openly discuss the possible next move of 4 more PAC schools.

All conferences deny activity until they announce it. All stories are denied or not mentioned until it happens. Nothing new there! And P.T. Barnum is still correct, there's one born every minute!
(This post was last modified: 08-02-2022 07:50 PM by JRsec.)
08-02-2022 07:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 55,086
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 2310
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #16
RE: sankey interview
(08-02-2022 07:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-02-2022 04:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(08-02-2022 04:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats pretty good news for everyone who is trying to survive in college football outside the cozy confines of the P2.

He doesn't rule out going beyond, but doesn't even seem to be considering it. He answers the questions about superconferences by talking about 18 to 20.

And this means exactly what? Nada! Rule #1 of expansion. You don't talk about expansion. Rule #2 of expansion. You don't talk about expansion.

Sankey's AD's are saying 20 plus. Sankey will see what the Big 10 does out West before he does anything. If they add 2 more, he'll add 2 more. If they add 4, he'll add four, or add 2 to the West and hold slots for the East.

Until then he'll admit there is a possibility and deny any action. They already know who they accept next. They likely know who they would accept after that. If the Big 10 takes Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford to move to 20, then Sankey knows no slots were spent on the ACC. This could open up a couple of current or past B12 schools. And any ACC interests would be lined up. If the Big Ten attempts a move on the ACC the SEC would be ready to announce in a moment's notice. If not we sit.

Citing these kinds of interviews means practically nothing. Sankey says 18-20, but isn't planning anything now. Standard Operating Procedure for any Commissioner. Warren wanted an Alliance to "stop the power grab" only it really meant "stall things until I can grab some power."

Frank wants to believe intentions are good, and Sankey speaks of the greater good, but one destroyed the Big 12's value and the other the PAC 12's value, and yet you, Frank, and others in denial, pay heed and take hope in these legally obfuscatory declarations while the Big 10 reloads tubes 1-4 to finish off the PAC and Sankey admits 4 more are possible for the SEC.

Well, if the SEC takes 4 valuable ACC targets and Warren finishes taking half of the PAC how can anyone doubt the impact it will have on playoff inclusion? Yes, there will be a catch all tweener conference, but for how long? Until present contracts expire, or the best of that conference are absorbed as well.

Nonsense to me is the extreme denial of what is going on as you watch it happening and after being wrong about the Big 10 raiding the PAC and calling the concept nonsense and fanatical, I would expect Frank to be a bit more judicious and cautious as to his stances, especially as credible sources openly discuss the possible next move of 4 more PAC schools.

All conferences deny activity until they announce it. All stories are denied or not mentioned until it happens. Nothing new there! And P.T. Barnum is still correct, there's one born every minute!

Well as Frank points out, playing each other is what makes a conference. Is Sankey going to destroy what made the SEC great by making it too big? No other conference has the rivalries that the SEC has. And that generates fan interest. Which generates dollars and creates loud crowds that look good on TV.

The 5-2-1 schedule when they first went to 12 was a mistake and they realized it, switching to 5-1-2. They were only playing 4 schools at home once every 8 years. It got worse with the expansion to 14 as it was only every 12 years for 6 schools. But at least the division was intact as was the biggest cross-division rivalry.

22 or 24 and you aren't going to see some schools that often and you won't have anything but crazy tiebreaks to figure out who gets in the ccg. The SEC title is still a big deal. Might not be then.

How does it go? Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. Sankey realizes we do need a national sport.
08-02-2022 08:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


PeteTheChop Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,336
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation: 217
I Root For: C-A-N-E-S
Location: North Florida lifer
Post: #17
RE: sankey interview
(08-02-2022 07:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-02-2022 04:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(08-02-2022 04:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats pretty good news for everyone who is trying to survive in college football outside the cozy confines of the P2.

He doesn't rule out going beyond, but doesn't even seem to be considering it. He answers the questions about superconferences by talking about 18 to 20.

And this means exactly what? Nada! Rule #1 of expansion. You don't talk about expansion. Rule #2 of expansion. You don't talk about expansion.

Sankey's AD's are saying 20 plus. Sankey will see what the Big 10 does out West before he does anything. If they add 2 more, he'll add 2 more. If they add 4, he'll add four, or add 2 to the West and hold slots for the East.

Until then he'll admit there is a possibility and deny any action. They already know who they accept next. They likely know who they would accept after that. If the Big 10 takes Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford to move to 20, then Sankey knows no slots were spent on the ACC. This could open up a couple of current or past B12 schools. And any ACC interests would be lined up. If the Big Ten attempts a move on the ACC the SEC would be ready to announce in a moment's notice. If not we sit.

Citing these kinds of interviews means practically nothing. Sankey says 18-20, but isn't planning anything now. Standard Operating Procedure for any Commissioner. Warren wanted an Alliance to "stop the power grab" only it really meant "stall things until I can grab some power."

Frank wants to believe intentions are good, and Sankey speaks of the greater good, but one destroyed the Big 12's value and the other the PAC 12's value, and yet you, Frank, and others in denial, pay heed and take hope in these legally obfuscatory declarations while the Big 10 reloads tubes 1-4 to finish off the PAC and Sankey admits 4 more are possible for the SEC.

Well, if the SEC takes 4 valuable ACC targets and Warren finishes taking half of the PAC how can anyone doubt the impact it will have on playoff inclusion? Yes, there will be a catch all tweener conference, but for how long? Until present contracts expire, or the best of that conference are absorbed as well.

Nonsense to me is the extreme denial of what is going on as you watch it happening and after being wrong about the Big 10 raiding the PAC and calling the concept nonsense and fanatical, I would expect Frank to be a bit more judicious and cautious as to his stances, especially as credible sources openly discuss the possible next move of 4 more PAC schools.

All conferences deny activity until they announce it. All stories are denied or not mentioned until it happens. Nothing new there! And P.T. Barnum is still correct, there's one born every minute!

Well said JR
08-02-2022 08:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Big 12 fan too Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 874
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 85
I Root For: NIU
Location:
Post: #18
RE: sankey interview
(08-02-2022 08:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(08-02-2022 07:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-02-2022 04:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(08-02-2022 04:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats pretty good news for everyone who is trying to survive in college football outside the cozy confines of the P2.

He doesn't rule out going beyond, but doesn't even seem to be considering it. He answers the questions about superconferences by talking about 18 to 20.

And this means exactly what? Nada! Rule #1 of expansion. You don't talk about expansion. Rule #2 of expansion. You don't talk about expansion.

Sankey's AD's are saying 20 plus. Sankey will see what the Big 10 does out West before he does anything. If they add 2 more, he'll add 2 more. If they add 4, he'll add four, or add 2 to the West and hold slots for the East.

Until then he'll admit there is a possibility and deny any action. They already know who they accept next. They likely know who they would accept after that. If the Big 10 takes Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford to move to 20, then Sankey knows no slots were spent on the ACC. This could open up a couple of current or past B12 schools. And any ACC interests would be lined up. If the Big Ten attempts a move on the ACC the SEC would be ready to announce in a moment's notice. If not we sit.

Citing these kinds of interviews means practically nothing. Sankey says 18-20, but isn't planning anything now. Standard Operating Procedure for any Commissioner. Warren wanted an Alliance to "stop the power grab" only it really meant "stall things until I can grab some power."

Frank wants to believe intentions are good, and Sankey speaks of the greater good, but one destroyed the Big 12's value and the other the PAC 12's value, and yet you, Frank, and others in denial, pay heed and take hope in these legally obfuscatory declarations while the Big 10 reloads tubes 1-4 to finish off the PAC and Sankey admits 4 more are possible for the SEC.

Well, if the SEC takes 4 valuable ACC targets and Warren finishes taking half of the PAC how can anyone doubt the impact it will have on playoff inclusion? Yes, there will be a catch all tweener conference, but for how long? Until present contracts expire, or the best of that conference are absorbed as well.

Nonsense to me is the extreme denial of what is going on as you watch it happening and after being wrong about the Big 10 raiding the PAC and calling the concept nonsense and fanatical, I would expect Frank to be a bit more judicious and cautious as to his stances, especially as credible sources openly discuss the possible next move of 4 more PAC schools.

All conferences deny activity until they announce it. All stories are denied or not mentioned until it happens. Nothing new there! And P.T. Barnum is still correct, there's one born every minute!

Well as Frank points out, playing each other is what makes a conference. Is Sankey going to destroy what made the SEC great by making it too big? No other conference has the rivalries that the SEC has. And that generates fan interest. Which generates dollars and creates loud crowds that look good on TV.

The 5-2-1 schedule when they first went to 12 was a mistake and they realized it, switching to 5-1-2. They were only playing 4 schools at home once every 8 years. It got worse with the expansion to 14 as it was only every 12 years for 6 schools. But at least the division was intact as was the biggest cross-division rivalry.

22 or 24 and you aren't going to see some schools that often and you won't have anything but crazy tiebreaks to figure out who gets in the ccg. The SEC title is still a big deal. Might not be then.

How does it go? Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. Sankey realizes we do need a national sport.

They don't necessarily need to be destroyed if you go big enough so that the conference is basically a network of bundled rights.

16-18 schools is awkward. Kind of a conference, sort of a league.

At 20+, certainly at 24, it is a league. Keep the 12 core SEC together, increase the conference game count (and the 24 school BIG does the same) so that 1-2 games that would have been prime non-conference are conference value adders that people want to see. The low value schools will give up a home game more often than the prime schools, and say thank you for the check that comes with being a P2.

Ideally, in terms of making the sport less regional, the cold war between BIG and SEC would have a hot war weekend with 24 cross-P2 games. Maybe that being the only non-conference eventually. And the outcome would have playoff implications.
08-02-2022 08:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 30,361
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 4111
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #19
RE: sankey interview
(08-02-2022 08:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(08-02-2022 07:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-02-2022 04:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(08-02-2022 04:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats pretty good news for everyone who is trying to survive in college football outside the cozy confines of the P2.

He doesn't rule out going beyond, but doesn't even seem to be considering it. He answers the questions about superconferences by talking about 18 to 20.

And this means exactly what? Nada! Rule #1 of expansion. You don't talk about expansion. Rule #2 of expansion. You don't talk about expansion.

Sankey's AD's are saying 20 plus. Sankey will see what the Big 10 does out West before he does anything. If they add 2 more, he'll add 2 more. If they add 4, he'll add four, or add 2 to the West and hold slots for the East.

Until then he'll admit there is a possibility and deny any action. They already know who they accept next. They likely know who they would accept after that. If the Big 10 takes Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford to move to 20, then Sankey knows no slots were spent on the ACC. This could open up a couple of current or past B12 schools. And any ACC interests would be lined up. If the Big Ten attempts a move on the ACC the SEC would be ready to announce in a moment's notice. If not we sit.

Citing these kinds of interviews means practically nothing. Sankey says 18-20, but isn't planning anything now. Standard Operating Procedure for any Commissioner. Warren wanted an Alliance to "stop the power grab" only it really meant "stall things until I can grab some power."

Frank wants to believe intentions are good, and Sankey speaks of the greater good, but one destroyed the Big 12's value and the other the PAC 12's value, and yet you, Frank, and others in denial, pay heed and take hope in these legally obfuscatory declarations while the Big 10 reloads tubes 1-4 to finish off the PAC and Sankey admits 4 more are possible for the SEC.

Well, if the SEC takes 4 valuable ACC targets and Warren finishes taking half of the PAC how can anyone doubt the impact it will have on playoff inclusion? Yes, there will be a catch all tweener conference, but for how long? Until present contracts expire, or the best of that conference are absorbed as well.

Nonsense to me is the extreme denial of what is going on as you watch it happening and after being wrong about the Big 10 raiding the PAC and calling the concept nonsense and fanatical, I would expect Frank to be a bit more judicious and cautious as to his stances, especially as credible sources openly discuss the possible next move of 4 more PAC schools.

All conferences deny activity until they announce it. All stories are denied or not mentioned until it happens. Nothing new there! And P.T. Barnum is still correct, there's one born every minute!

Well as Frank points out, playing each other is what makes a conference. Is Sankey going to destroy what made the SEC great by making it too big? No other conference has the rivalries that the SEC has. And that generates fan interest. Which generates dollars and creates loud crowds that look good on TV.

The 5-2-1 schedule when they first went to 12 was a mistake and they realized it, switching to 5-1-2. They were only playing 4 schools at home once every 8 years. It got worse with the expansion to 14 as it was only every 12 years for 6 schools. But at least the division was intact as was the biggest cross-division rivalry.

22 or 24 and you aren't going to see some schools that often and you won't have anything but crazy tiebreaks to figure out who gets in the ccg. The SEC title is still a big deal. Might not be then.

How does it go? Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. Sankey realizes we do need a national sport.

Do me a favor Bullet and count up all SEC rivalries yet unaccounted for in realignment and give me a number? Kansas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Louisville, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami, Clemson. How many does that make? Hmm, 8 more, so 24.

When we hit 24 you know what happens? 4 divisions of 6 happens! Know how they'll be grouped? Rivalries and regional neighbors!

And you aren't a farmer or you'd know shoats get slaughtered and hogs breed! People want tender leanish pork and a big hog is only good for sausage.

Now Bullet you will play the schools which draw the most and rotate the rest like the OOC games of interest you have now. Your schedule will have a core of 5 in a 24 school conference and if you play 2 more each year from each other division and one OOC you will have 12 games a year, 11 of which are conference, and you will play all 24 schools every 3 years.

And Sankey knows, as does Warren, it will still be national in scope, and at least initially expand the P5 by 7 schools, only divided into 3 conferences, 2 of which will be well paid and 1 which will receive less but have access.

So quit the handwringing It'll still be a conference, but one where core games will be more frequent and intense than the way conferences used to be.

I get a bit peeved at the constant chicken little sky is falling response to changes we can't stop, especially when we will start most likely with 72 and not 65, or 60, or 56, or 48.

Do the math on the odds of nabbing 1 of 16 slots as opposed to 1 of 4 and then tell me how unfair it all is!
08-02-2022 08:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoBuckeyes1047 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 364
Joined: Jan 2021
Reputation: 35
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #20
RE: sankey interview
(08-02-2022 07:23 PM)No Bull Wrote:  
(08-02-2022 05:27 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  To me, the B1G and SEC competing against each other probably prevents either from reaching 24 teams. I think at most, you could reasonably get to 20-22 teams each, but I think the B1G with help from the Big 12 finishes off the PAC-12 and we end up in a P4 format with the potential for P3 depending how many teams escape the ACC. I think losing 5-6 including ND is survivable for the ACC, but more than 6 probably results in a P3 format.

My gut says the B1G adds ND with 3 PAC-12 schools to get to 20, then ESPN probably persuades the SEC to grab at least 4 of their most attractive ACC schools that benefit the SEC and prevents B1G expansion when the time comes to raid the ACC. I think JRsec just suggested UVA, UNC, Duke, and FSU. Maybe they could even snag Clemson and Kansas and call it a day at 22, but I think 20 would be more preferable to the SEC. I think the only path to 22 teams for the B1G is if they can get 2 of UVA, UNC, and Duke, and the SEC whoever they can add brand wise to get to 22 teams, but I think ESPN and the SEC will prevent the B1G from doing this.

At that point, maybe the ACC nabs WVU, Cincy, UCF, and at least 1 other team to rebuild to 14 teams as a best of the rest east of the Mississippi. I think it should be Memphis, but if ESPN has a say, I think they grab UCONN from FOX/CBS and keep Memphis under ESPN via. AAC. USF could be another team and maybe the ACC grabs all for 16 teams including 3 in Florida. The Big 12 expands to get up to 14-16 teams grabbing the 4 corner schools from the PAC-12 and them 1-3 teams from SDSU, SMU, Boise St., and Memphis (if available).

In summary, I think we get a B1G and SEC with 20-22 teams each while the ACC and Big 12 survive with 14-16 teams each to maintain a P4 format, but I could be wrong.

I hate it, but this is how I see it as well. P4. Not sure whether the PAC 12 eats the Big 12 or Vice Versa. The ACC is pretty god awful without the schools listed above.

I think the best case playoff scenario is where the P4 champs earn a double bye, the P4 CCG losers and G# champ (via. 4 team G# playoff for top 3 champs + top G# at-large or top 4 G# champs rather than individual CCGs or top 2 G# champs play-in game after individual G# conferences play their CCGs as their 12th game) earn a single bye, and play 3 wild card games for the top 6 at-large equating to a 5+10 CFP.

I use G# because I can see C-USA being finished off for a G4, but if not many G5 teams reach P4, then obviously C-USA should survive unless the other 4 conferences are told they could earn more through the CFP if there is only 4 G conferences. I honestly would prefer G4 in my opinion just so the G4 conferences play 3 non-conference games, 8 conference games with the 8th serving as a CCG for division winners or top 2 teams, then using their 12th overall game as a G4 semis Thanksgiving weekend while the non-champs participate in a conference head to head challenge like in basketball, but the players can earn money if their conference win. Then the 2 G4 semi winners play for the CFP spot the same weekend as the P4 CCGs. That way every conference has a path to the CFP via. win your conference.

With this 5+10 CFP, CCGs stay relevant, G4 or G5 has a guarenteed spot with additional paths, ND has a good path if they stay independent, Army-Navy has their own time slot still, and teams remain limited to 17 games at most while fans would have games every weekend from Week 0 to New Years. Heck, the B1G and SEC could probably profit off of conference semis (2 winners earn a playoff spot and at least a single bye) and a 5th v. 6th conference game all on Thanksgiving weekend where the winner either wins a playoff spot or trip to the Citrus Bowl and the loser goes to the Citrus Bowl or a lesser bowl.
08-02-2022 09:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2022 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2022 MyBB Group.