A lot of this chatter coming out of SEC meetings about playoffs and comparisons to American pro leagues struck a nerve. I really want to make this a long winded post including history and examples both domestic and foreign, but let me try to just summarize: There is more money for everyone when there are more teams, and towns, and stories included in the chase for a championship (or just a seat at the table). By eliminating teams from contention before the season even starts (or a league is even formed) and walling off your garden, you are self imposing a cap on the potential revenue available to you (you being the richest teams in a position of decision making power, or a franchise owner in the case of American pro sports). To add, without getting too long winded, there is also more money when more networks are involved covering more teams, schools, towns, stories. ESPN have seduced the SEC into believing all they need is each other, but it's short sighted and leaves a TON of money on the table. Has the NFL (or any pro league) ever sold all its rights to one network? Of course not. These conference commissioners are getting rich by making exclusive deals that leave potential revenue on the table. Sell your game of the week to one network, sell your B and C game to another network, allow smaller networks to bid on your content depth. I know there was the seduction of conference networks, but you didn't need an exclusive partner to launch one (see: B1G). There were (and still are) better ways forward for the sport that rise tides for everyone while also allowing the SEC and B1G to upgrade their yachts. It's not zero sum, and including the ACC or even the SunBelt doesn't mean you get less money for yourself.