SEC/B1G Committee
- Thread starter Deleted11512
- Start date
Good grief. Just get it over with already.
These people are so incompetent.
With your Office reference, the way these folks are dealing with college football reminds me of the clip where Michael describes the one time he went deer hunting.
These people are so incompetent.
With your Office reference, the way these folks are dealing with college football reminds me of the clip where Michael describes the one time he went deer hunting.
Last edited:
Michael Scott:
Yeah, I went hunting once. Shot the deer in the leg. Had to kill it with a shovel, took about an hour. Why do you ask?
Yeah, I went hunting once. Shot the deer in the leg. Had to kill it with a shovel, took about an hour. Why do you ask?
The BIG12 and ACC are sitting on the riverbank waiting to see what floats by.
This is from the press release:
Sources have told ESPN that Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti and SEC commissioner Greg Sankey have been working closely together -- more than their predecessors had -- at a time when conference expansion has further separated their leagues from the other FBS conferences. The SEC will welcome Oklahoma and Texas this summer, while the Big Ten will add Oregon, Washington, USC and UCLA from a Pac-12 that is on the verge of extinction.
The advisory group was formed in reaction to "recent court decisions, pending litigation, a patchwork of state laws and complex governance proposals," according to the Big Ten's news release.
"The Big Ten and the SEC have substantial investment in the NCAA and there is no question that the voices of our two conferences are integral to governance and other reform efforts," Petitti said in a statement. "We recognize the similarity in our circumstances, as well as the urgency to address the common challenges we face."
The Big Ten-SEC advisory group will act as a consultant to the leagues but won't have authority to implement changes. Its composition and timetable and the specific issues it will tackle are still unclear. What it has done, though, is further bind the two behemoths together.
"There are similar cultural and social impacts on our student-athletes, our institutions, and our communities because of the new collegiate athletics environment," Sankey said in a statement. "We do not have predetermined answers to the myriad questions facing us. We do not expect to agree on everything but enhancing interaction between our conferences will help to focus efforts on common sense solutions."
This is from the press release:
Sources have told ESPN that Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti and SEC commissioner Greg Sankey have been working closely together -- more than their predecessors had -- at a time when conference expansion has further separated their leagues from the other FBS conferences. The SEC will welcome Oklahoma and Texas this summer, while the Big Ten will add Oregon, Washington, USC and UCLA from a Pac-12 that is on the verge of extinction.
The advisory group was formed in reaction to "recent court decisions, pending litigation, a patchwork of state laws and complex governance proposals," according to the Big Ten's news release.
"The Big Ten and the SEC have substantial investment in the NCAA and there is no question that the voices of our two conferences are integral to governance and other reform efforts," Petitti said in a statement. "We recognize the similarity in our circumstances, as well as the urgency to address the common challenges we face."
The Big Ten-SEC advisory group will act as a consultant to the leagues but won't have authority to implement changes. Its composition and timetable and the specific issues it will tackle are still unclear. What it has done, though, is further bind the two behemoths together.
"There are similar cultural and social impacts on our student-athletes, our institutions, and our communities because of the new collegiate athletics environment," Sankey said in a statement. "We do not have predetermined answers to the myriad questions facing us. We do not expect to agree on everything but enhancing interaction between our conferences will help to focus efforts on common sense solutions."
On the other hand, they might eventually thrash out how they will divide the 14 teams they will need to co-opt in order to bring both leagues to 24 teams.
I still pine for smaller athletic conferences where all the members were in the game geographical footprint.
Here are the details.
https://sports.yahoo.com/sec-big-te...letics--pressures-are-mounting-172832810.html
https://sports.yahoo.com/sec-big-te...letics--pressures-are-mounting-172832810.html
If the two conferences get large enough, we may end up with some sort of "pod" arrangement that will give you that.
And I think that might increase fan interest, especially if those in the "pod" are in the Eastern Time Zone or in a border state to the time zone boundary.
I think the association of these conferences is saying straight out that the NCAA can't handle what it is supposed to be governing, but that maybe the right combination of schools can. Something's going to come of this, and I expect eventually it will be something redefining - something really big.
We may all be returning to the primal atom from which this collegiate universe exploded from - pulled together by gravitational forces that seemingly are irresistible. Look for something in the future resembling the late great Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association......
It's impossible to govern 134 programs the same with amount of money being thrown around. Alabama isn't Akron. The SEC isn't the MAC. Football isn't bball or baseball. The time has come.
I agree. I think that's what happens. I think everyone involved would much prefer a regional focus. But it was just impossible with the previous setup. Consolidation first, then regionalize it. It will be similar to the NFL in my opinion.
They may also be discussing how to cull a few non-performing teams from their conferences and replace them with better options. I'm a bit concerned.
They don't care about on field results as far as that goes. They need a number of teams that people watch, buy merch, attend games, etc...It has to be big enough so we don't have the same 20 teams playing each other each week. No way networks are going to pay for that.
The new conferences will need lower teams. You can't have a conference of ONLY powerful teams. Someone ends up with losing records, and begins to settle into that lower team status.
Not I. I don't think that's the intent, but if we don't pass muster, we deserve it.
So no one has even bothered to mention that Sankey stated that the CFP has been unable to finalize the 5+7 model ?
Last edited:
They'll get down to that. There is no Power Five anymore, so the template, whatever it is, needs to reflect that.
TECHNICALLY, the P12 still exists. It's just WSU and OSU. I don't know what dictates a P5 conference vs a G5. Is there some kind of legal agreement? It would be hilarious to see one of those two get into the playoff as a result of all this.
Whatever the holdup may be, it has to be unanimity for the format to be finalized.
That's what I was thinking. P12 still exists, still has a vote, still has a commissioner. I cheering for chaos.
I don't think "Power-Five" is a legally recognized term in the sense that those conferences enjoy special legal status or protections. Even the considerations given them as "autonomy" conferences are accorded because of their makeup. With respect to the Pac 12, that makeup has definitely been dissolved.
All 10 conferences plus ND have a vote when it comes to the CFP. P12 is still alive. Not yet dissolved. That's what I'm talking about. What legal language exists around the 10 conferences.
It's not a law, but the CFP is actually a company, CFP Administration, LLC. That company will have an operating agreement. That's the secret sauce. From their website, each 10 FBS conference is a member of the company, along with ND. So unless there's a clause in there about each member needing to have a minimum number of members itself, the P12 will have a seat as long as it's alive. They have a Board of Managers that governs the the business. The representative from the P12 is the WSU president. No way in hell he's voting himself out of the playoff.
It's an interesting idea. Can a 2 member conference hang on and essentially have a 50% each chance of making the playoff every year?? WSU might become my #2 team. lol
Watch what happens. The CFP might have to pay them something, but they won't include either of those two teams in the playoffs unless one of them is ranked high enough to qualify anyway. The "six most highly ranked conference champions" language will take care of that. Once the current agreement expires, or is amended anyway, the CFP will not continue to recognize the two-member Pac 12 as an autonomous conference.It's not a law, but the CFP is actually a company, CFP Administration, LLC. That company will have an operating agreement. That's the secret sauce. From their website, each 10 FBS conference is a member of the company, along with ND. So unless there's a clause in there about each member needing to have a minimum number of members itself, the P12 will have a seat as long as it's alive. They have a Board of Managers that governs the the business. The representative from the P12 is the WSU president. No way in hell he's voting himself out of the playoff.
It's an interesting idea. Can a 2 member conference hang on and essentially have a 50% each chance of making the playoff every year?? WSU might become my #2 team. lol
Agreeing with this doesn't mean I like it. But I believe you are correct.
Last edited:
I agree it's an interesting thought, but I think if that were a real possibility, the PAC 2 would have a bunch of G5 schools beating down their door to become members #3 through #8. I don't get the impression that is happening.