Sorry, I think the B1G proposed the 4-4-2-2-1-3 first. 9 seasons out of 10, that is B1G/SEC getting 10 teams out of 16. And if ND is no good, then probably an 11th also. Not sure why that is not good enough for everyone.
I think the SEC coaches prefer the 5-11 because they think they can get more in with that format. You may be right that the B1G originally proposed the 4-4-2-2-1-3. Or they may have both considered it. I recall that last year, or maybe it was in the Spring, the SEC changed its position based on the result of a meeting of their coaches. Last Spring I think.
There also may be a fundamental philosophical difference between the B1G and SEC. The B1G may still want there to be only 2 conferences to rule the CF world -- them and the SEC. The SEC I think recognizes for the good of the game there needs to be more than just the two conferences. (Among other differences.)
Perhaps... but the B1G's proposal of 4-4-2-2-1-3 would have given the ACC and B12 juice, especially if everyone locked in for 10 years. Who cares if Clemson/FSU leave if we still have 2 playoff spots? Plus, Clemson/FSU cannot crack top 3 in the ACC... are they really going to be top 6 in the SEC? To me, that was a life preserver for the ACC... and we said "nah." The ACC will get 1 team in a 16-team playoff more often than 3. Why not take 2 and hope you still get an at-large for that 3rd team in that rare year with 3 playoff-quality teams???
I don't disagree with your logic. Maybe it was a concern with the perception issue that the ACC and Big12 would forever be viewed as lesser. Maybe at some point reality has to be recognized.
As you note, the SEC has identified that a power league of just the B1G and SEC is not likely to succeed. Also, the SEC remains a regional conference, tightly packed into the Atlantic south, Gulf Coast and a few more interior teams, all geographically packed into a small region.
I am honestly surprised by this. I was convinced that the SEC and B1G thinking was totally aligned. Their recognition could lead to a reduction in poaching. Notice I didn't say "will", but "could,"
I believe SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey has made statements about this. You're right about "could". I'm not sure it necessary "will". I think the comments were just aimed toward the talk of the SEC and B1G forming and finalizing a Big Two and only they would participate in the college football playoffs. Maybe others remember more about this.
I think the SEC and ESPN are not willing to let the B1G/Fox garner more teams without at least a fight. This is one reason I believe that the ACC is safer than many think. ESPN does not want to pay SEC money but does not want to lose a steady reliable source of revenue and profit, either. Just an opinion.
This begs the question: How much authority does a conference commissioner (Sankey) have independent of Board of Presidents approval?Shots at the CFP Committee and . . . Greg Sankey
Greg Sankey got Charlie Brown'd by the College Football Playoff committee
Many expressed feelings that Greg Sankey acted too quickly in officially changing the SEC's scheduling model. There had long been pressure for the league to movbamahammer.com
I doubt that Sankey does anything the Presidents of his member institutions aren't in favor of.
Sankey has been good for the SEC. No so much for the ACC, but he is the SEC commissioner, not the ACC commissioner.Shots at the CFP Committee and . . . Greg Sankey
Greg Sankey got Charlie Brown'd by the College Football Playoff committee
Many expressed feelings that Greg Sankey acted too quickly in officially changing the SEC's scheduling model. There had long been pressure for the league to mov
www.usatoday.com
The ACC would be better with Sankey running it than the last few commissioners...
Possible major UH OH. Might the SEC "take their ball and go home"?
CFP strength of schedule broken promises could lead to unthinkable SEC doomsday scenario
CFP hasn't kept strength of schedule promise. Your move, SEC (and it could be a doozy).
