If the powers that be will only ever consider the teams in the SEC and Big 10 like most people are fearing - how will the scheduling be impacted?
Will, they not schedule an independent like saying: "Clemson"(no we aren't an independent, just for example wishful thinking). Do any of you see this being a way to bolster your schedule assuming you aren't in the Super conf? Now, you play a respectful schedule behind that and win them all. Assuming you won your 2 or 3 super-C games - would you not be considered for the CFP in theory? Obviously, hypothetical!
Part B: are more people thinking about the money the University will miss out on or the potential to be left out of the playoffs? Or both? What if you could still have the playoffs; but not the payout?
Well, "that last scenario is how it is now based on current payouts for each conference today"!
Just wondering what impact you all think two super-conferences would have on scheduling? And, potential if they don't schedule outside teams; they could control everybody else's strength of schedule.
Look at the membership and Super Conferences is a joke.
Vanderbilt - Northwestern South Carolina - Rutgers Kentucky - Maryland Arkansas - Nebraska Tennessee - Illinois Missouri - Minnesota Purdue - Indiana(Yeah, they are both Big 10).
And throw in teams like Iowa and Texas A & M who wet the bed a bunch in key moments, but typically field good teams. Perception "Is Not" reality! The idea that this gauntlet exist is all rating hype! It gets the "locals" all liquored up on SEC and Big 10 propaganda and they eat it up! Fact is, those conferences are very good at the top! The best or no less than among the best. But, most of the schools in both conferences are riding coattails!
I think it's more the possibility that the superconferences simply close rank. No one thinks that these 32 (or 36 or 40) teams are the top 32, 36, 40 teams out there. But look at current schedules. B1G teams have 9 conference games and schedule 3 OOC. SEC has 8 conference and 4 OOC. Many of these games are against the bottom feeders of the conference. But a few are against the best teams. And that's a schedule. So I think the concern is that the superconferences just play within themselves, and create a championship playoff that just contains their two conferences. That leaves the ACC to schedule OOC games with the remains of the PAC12 and Big 12. Currently one issue ACC teams have is that the ACC has a lack of strong teams, so Clemson needs to bolster our SOS with Georgia, ND, Texas A&M. Hard to do if they won't play us.
And for Part B I think the big concern is that over time the huge disparity between conference payouts will be impossible to overcome. Just like the current Group of 5 teams. Theoretically there is no reason why they can't produce great teams that have a shot at the championship. Every team is limited to 85 scholarships. But it is very, very hard to compete with teams with greater resources. Of course great resources still doesn't guarantee success (USC anyone?). As Dabo likes to say it's hard to win. But if it's hard to win when the resourcs are pretty even it becomes almost impossible when they are heavily skewed towards the superconferences. Eventually Clemson falls to the wayside.
Wouldn't that be a situation where everyone has losses potentially? The old story SEC lovers hang on to about "every game being a gauntlet"!
Who gets in or not is always such a subjective thing, right! And now, people are saying, the perception of how good the top to bottom competition is going to be is going to sway voters' opinions 100%.
I know I am in the minority here; but I still think Clemson, Miami, FSU, Oregon, and Washington which have really good personnel and an explosive offense would have a good opportunity of competing for a championship. In terms of dollars for the athletic program; I get it the scale will be heavily tilted toward SEC and Big 10 schools. So, if it's only about money for the program! Seek the best option and join now while the Clemson brand is hot!
I still see Clemson having a really good shot because of its "recent track record" against the very top of both the Big 10 and SEC(2019 and 2020 not included although LSU just had an unbelievable offense in 19 we still had a shot in the 4th qtr. and OSU played 6 games and practiced for Clemson a bunch so during all that off time..........that's what it took to end the game slide.....).
Maybe years from now; it won't happen. But, over the next couple of years, a really good Clemson team gets into the playoffs despite what they have going on. Which is my main concern! 2nd concern long term is the money disparity which could affect what players you get to a point. Facilities being upgraded...........but wait! We had some really nice facilities in 2015 when we came within an onside kick of whipping Alabama; and we hadn't won the chip since 81. How did we do it? Alabama's football budget was more than Clemson then too! Why hasn't Georgia done more if that's all that matters or Florida and Texas A&M(they have to go back to Bear Bryant and the Oil money has been there since they paid players under the table). Same deal with Texas(anybody seen V. Young). 1970 and then 2005 - huge gap for a school with such a large alumni base. Texas is also supposedly(not in my opinion...in terms of players no......pageantry and big stadiums yes) the Mecca of H.S. football. Why aren't they lifting trophies yearly then? It takes more than what some are equating in their formulas to win on the field in other words. Because those disparities haven't just happened due to NIL. They have been there.
Again, if it's all just about athletic budget, let's join one of those leagues now! But do so with that in mind; not "woe is me we won't get in the CFP" if not.