Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="HtownOrange, post: 4919758, member: 622"]
I agree in part, many of the rich like to flaunt their power ,along with wealth.  However, the wise always look to the future in near, midrange, and long terms.

I think this is why most SEC teams are not clamoring to oust Vandy, in spite of Saban's idiocy.  To claim dominance  a team must beat all comers.  The top teams must beat top level and mid level team, we can assume they will beat the low level teams.  But the mid level teams are not mid level if there are no low level teams.  Thus, a need for Vandy.  Also, a need for lesser conferences to supply additional victories to put up the middle level teams.

Without this supply, the SEC truly would beat each other up and likely never have an undefeated champion.  As it stands, there are eleven teams who have competed at the championship level over the last few decades.  The SEC will need a source for more wins, probably internal and external.

That is why I believe a minimum number of teams is closer to 100 than 64.  I think long term, everyone knows they will need one contract to include all bowl series teams, like the professional leagues have.  The goal in the near term is to make what you can, get as far ahead and then make the one-contract deal when necessary.  Also, at that point, regionalism can prevail and we can get back to local rivalries.  Just another take on CFB...
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?