These aren’t the same thing.
Sooo, the rating system is good enough for five spots but not the other seven?
Is this how they taught you to break down an argument in Shit Creek University or wherever you went?
What did you do with ElTexan? I've actually agreed with you the last few days?
Truthfully, with 12 or 14 the ranking systems' faults are probably hidden, but AQs also add some fun to the conference championship games. Some of us still take pride in winning or conference.
just saying it's not going to be a participation distribution model which is currently the model..
Yeah, not sure why the SEC agreed to that. Same with the ACC. This guarantees that FSU and Clemson will be leaving the ACC as soon as they can. If it was based on participation, they could argue they were due more. They can still do that, but it made more sense if the larger amounts of distribution was based on who gets in and wins.
they wanted to take more of the percentages from the G5/Independents
It's not really that ... I get that the P2 wanted more. The question was whether you use pre-set shares - that's what they did - or whether you use a combination of a base level per conference share, with the rest distributed based on the number of teams you get in, and how far they go - that's the participation amount. I prefer it be based on merit. More teams that win more games gets you more money. But, the B1G has historically had less teams, that didn't go as far, so the argument would be that they get less money. As I mentioned in another post, the B1G has huge fanbases going for them that drive larger numbers. And that's probably why the SEC agreed to such a split.
It's given to the conferences who can then decide how to split it. The SEC will split it evenly, once the participants' expenses are covered. The ACC might have done it differently. But evidently they aren't doing any participation shares. Just straight up conference splits.
