Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="SU94, post: 5433321, member: 202"] I hear you. This new paradigm would be fantastic, sort of like CFB in the 1980s/early 90s, ... so I am naturally skeptical that it can work. Same as you. But (hang with me!), what if each school/conference chooses to opt in, of their own free will? Not unlike the Grant of Rights. Tennessee does not have to sign the document and join the others 15 SEC teams. They can hold out and search for a crooked system that they can dominate via volume of boosters and ultimately money. But the ridicule would be strong and pronounced, especially if Stankey, Bama, LSU and others were on board. I believe that most schools, school ADs/Presidents and reasonable alumni would rather shoulder reasonable degrees of disappointment ("we went 8-4, when in the old days it would've been 11-1") than the alternative. Remember, optimism can be as sudden as next season (it works in the NFL and every other pro sport). Isn't "opting in" better than to willfully paint your school/program as reliant upon a corrupt/rigged ecosystem. Isn't "opting in" better than to be alone (no conference) with no one to play? Isn't "opting in" better than to be mired in years or litigation to claim monies that might not be relevant if you're not on TV and a part of the SEC/CFB landscape? If everyone wants modern college football to be "NFL Lite," well, an even playing field/parity is the secret sauce. Not the same 5-6 teams playing every year. I see this proposal as logically prudent and sturdy, which is a nice starting point. That said, the truest tests will be can this become legally sound/sturdy and will the enforcement officials have the chops and backing to uphold the rules. TBD, but Greg Stankey will have a heavy say in all that if I had to guess. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?