woof, you miss a day on goEMAW.com and you miss a ton.
someone give me the cliffs of the last 25 pages. (i realize that Pitt and Cuse are going ACC, but thats it)
No much else. Just lots of speculation on what the final alignment will be. OU and OSU look to be PAC for sure, Texas and Tech still working out the details. Notre Dame might join Big10, but keep NBC contract. If PAC and ACC go to 16, SEC and Big10 might have their hand forced if they want to be included in the playoff system (assuming that's where the super conferences are headed). It's hard to see us not being one of the 64 if crap starts flying, but the SEC and Big10 have little incentive to reach 16 outside of a playoff system.
How did I do?
You forgot the MiR/Chingon fight, but good otherwise.
I didn't argue with Chingon about anything, can't see that happening, he forms coherent thoughts. I argued with a simp who dumbed down a Chingon talking point.
Good god you are a stupid eff. You can't even respond coherently when you get called out.
You keep repeating yourself, there's nothing left to say. You think the big money for a playoff just appeared yesterday, as if the UPs haven't seen the networks shelling out billions of dollars for March Madness. You also are not seeming to grasp that the same people who have blocked a playoff are the same people who are leading this realignment. College football has slowly become more and more exclusive since the '40s and college football has not moved to a playoff. You still haven't given a reason why excluding three more schools would make them change their mind.
Even if you believe that we're going to a 64 team model, I don't, there is not more tv money in a pool of 64 than a pool of 67 schools. It's really simple. Do you think the NCAA tournament would gain value if they kept the tournament the same but didn't give auto bids to the SWAC, MEAC, and the Patriot League? The answer is no because those leagues don't add value to the contract. The three schools left out of a 64 team model don't matter even now, leaving Baylor, K-State, and UCF won't add value. Having UT, USC, Alabama, and ND do. There is nothing preventing that from happening now.
Apologies for being a bit tuck and long winded in this, but what YOU keep failing to realize is that your whole argument of "they've been rejecting for years, so they're going to keep doing the same" is outdated and very Beebish. Perhaps I can help you see the light:
1.) All the "studies" you referenced are old and do not reflect the current/future environment. No one predicted, even 10 years ago, that the contracts would encompass this much money. The NFL has done all the schools a huge favor by making football the most popular sport in America. So all this "they knew about the money..." Yes, they knew, but they had no idea. Also, referencing March Madness as being even somewhat analogous to a future FB playoff is misleading. The money for March Madness all goes to the NCAA, not so much the universities.
2.) The future of higher educations has DRASTICALLY changed in the last 5-10 years. What IS the future environment for many higher education institutions? Decreasing contributions from their respective states - at an accelerating rate. More pressure to lower tuition. Decreasing contributions from Fed gov. research funding. Our Govt's, Fed and state, are all broke. Why do you think UT is holding on the LHN like it has been? Academic support from athletic activities is how many of these UPs envision supporting their schools' academic mission. Well, that, and going private. I work for one of our private sister schools, and the lack of future cash flow is even a hot topic for them.
3.) There is a TON more money in a playoff system than the current bowl system. The conferences will likely succeed from the NCAA if they go 4x16 (although I'm not convinced th 4x16 will happen), but even if they don't succeed, going to the 4 pod system, as referenced earlier, creates a HUGE negotiation advantage for the conferences. Instead of each network negotiating with some drunk bowl rep, they will have to deal with 1 or all of the four super conferences in negotiating rates for the playoff games. This provides the universities a unified approach as opposed to the current piecemeal approach via the traditional bowl system.
As was stated earlier. The paradigm has shifted. A future environment of universities with dwindling endowments has forced their hands into realignment waters they were not willing to wade into previously.
Looking fwd to another deprecating response...
