A great article about the Big10,PAC12,and a playoff. http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/...footb.html

Another SEC guy gives the SEC credit for all of these changes. Surprise!

Once again, on-the-field results have nothing to do with this. It's all about making money, money and more money off-the-field. The power schools realize how much money they're leaving on the table, and in an era with a sluggish economy and dwindling public funding for state schools, they can't afford to do that anymore. It has little to do with the SEC (as well as they've performed for the past 6 years).

I thought the Big10 and PAC12 had bucket loads of cash from their network deals?

(02-12-2012 04:55 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  I thought the Big10 and PAC12 had bucket loads of cash from their network deals?

Do you know anybody who doesn't need MORE money?

(02-12-2012 05:03 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-12-2012 04:55 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  I thought the Big10 and PAC12 had bucket loads of cash from their network deals?

Do you know anybody who doesn't need MORE money?

They needed money 5 years ago. It didn't seem to bother them then.

(02-12-2012 04:41 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Another SEC guy gives the SEC credit for all of these changes. Surprise!

Once again, on-the-field results have nothing to do with this. It's all about making money, money and more money off-the-field. The power schools realize how much money they're leaving on the table, and in an era with a sluggish economy and dwindling public funding for state schools, they can't afford to do that anymore. It has little to do with the SEC (as well as they've performed for the past 6 years).

Making more money... and sharing as little of it as possible.

The "Big Ten" 4-team proposal has a chance with the power conferences because it tries to have the best of both worlds -- keeping the cash cows (for the big boys) of the current regular season and TV deals, and the current bowl revenue, and adding the revenue from a 4-team don't-call-it-a-playoff on top of that.