Its really not more important than winning a national championship, I have never heard anybody say that (not saying no one has, I just have never heard it. If higher ups in schools have said it, I am guessing they are playing the same political game as Delaney). What is important to the schools is that the Pac-12 and B1G get to keep it.
This.
Go back over the BCS era & see how many years the Big Ten put a team in a second team in a BCS bowl as an at large bid, then compare that to the ACC, Big 12, Pac & even the SEC. The real world data is the exact opposite of the argument you are making.
I really don't get the Missouri thing that a lot of people continue to bring up. This is no slight against Mizzou, but there was no reason to bring in another team just because. If other conferences want to get huge so be it, that does not mean we need to as well and we don't need to add schools unless they are going to bring a huge value with them a la Nebraska and Penn State. Strictly from an economical view point, the next time our tv deals get negotiated we are going to see a huge jump on account of Nebraska. That's why it did not matter that they only have 1.8 million in population or whatever it is. The conference knew that our national tv contracts would make up for any difference in BTN rights. If Mizzou were brought in the only jump monetarily would have been from BTN rights because of the state population, our ABC contract would not have seen significant value change because MIzzou is not a national draw as Nebraska is. I just don't see the value added argument for Mizzou and if the argument is bring Mizzou in just because we need more teams, I have not seem any evidence that we need more teams. I really am not trying to bad mouth Mizzou, trying to stay as objective as I can as a homer.
For me its about more than money. It's about competing for the top of CFB...I don't think its any coincidence that the rise of the SEC as the dominant conference coincided, at least in part, with their expansion...it helps with recruiting.
Why do you say that?
Who said it has to be a 4-team playoff?
I get your reasoning and they'd probably be right to think as much...bottom line is joining any of the top 4 conferences wouldn't pan out well for them but hey you left out the SEC....so we're not the last conference they'd join
??? The SEC hadn't expanded in 20 years. They've been the dominant power for the last few years, before the current expansion was even dreamt of. I don't see any relationship between their power and expansion, much less trying to figure out whether it's a coincidence.
They've been dominant much longer than the last three. The SEC has won 7 of the past 13 going back to 1998 only 6 years after they started their CCG. In the years since their first expansion the SEC has won 8 NC's. In the 20 years prior to that they only won 3.