This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

I see the attraction to this idea, but in the end I think by tf86

It raises more questions than answers.

Presumably, at least to my way of thinking, in the end it'll also be about outvoting the SEC on certain aspects. Problem is, that assumes that the best interests of the others always hinge upon a rather simple analysis of "SEC bad, opposite good." That's not always the case, however.

Take the issue of CFP expansion, for example. B1G and ACC may want to oppose it at this point, since keeping the four-team field keeps them relatively close to keeping pace with the SEC on that front, at least. OTOH, the Pac-12 might want expansion to go forward, as expansion gives the Pac-12 a better chance at representation within the CFP. Similarly, if ND were to join this consortium, ND is essentially a "conference of one," and therefore, potentially benefits from an expanded CFP field as well.

Just one example that jumps out at me as potentially problematic to this arrangement. I'm sure there are others.