I'd prefer to head to the West coast every other year or so.
Football VIDEO: ACC, Big Ten and Pac-12 discuss the new alliance between the three conferences.
- Thread starter Tango Two
- Start date
I'd prefer to head to the West coast every other year or so.
This is basically comical and shows how stupid this really is. There is zero to hold this alliance together. As an initial step, it is fine. But if this is all the B1G has, we are in trouble.
That, too, but I'm anticipating more ACC matchups for us and the Terps than PAC12 ones.
Good, time to feast on some ACC cupcakes.
You know how far in advance schedule contracts are signed. If the ACC, B1G and PAC12 decide you need to schedule one from each conference, each year, that'll be all the contract you'll need between the three.
Wrong. This alliance keeps 8 SEC teams in a 12 playoff system. Its about playoff $. No change until contract ends. Limits to teams in the playoffs per conference.
Hang on a second. There are only 4 powere conferences left. Of the four, only one can add schools in the near future and the individual schools are able to talk to other conferences through intermediaries. Can we possibly make this any easier for the SEC to cherry pick schools?
Cherry pick who?
People get too worried about the SEC when really there likely aren't many moves left for them to make. Think about the same way you see the PAC12/ACC now but from a higher position. We all agree that there really aren't any substantial moves the PAC12/ACC can make right? They're boxed in. No one they can add that can move the needle. Well after Texas/OU it's about the same for the SEC. BTW I don't think the B10, or anyone else for that matter, lost them. The SEC for them is a natural fit both geographically and football mentality wise.
Play it out...who can the SEC add realistically that will really make a big deal to the B10. FSU/Clemson are always the names bandied about...well at least Clemson is not in the equation for the B10 and I'm not sure if FSU would be either (they might be). But like I said in another post, from a podcast from these sports reporters...not so sure there as big for tv guys as fans think if they're not winning big and playing for national championships. And after that who else? VT, again not sure that would be the team the B10 would want. Anyone else? Not really IMO. Any PAC12 team would probably come to the B10 first and so would UNC/UVA and GT if you want to include them (SEC already has UGA anyhow). IMO the B10 will likely always have right of first refusal for any PAC12 team and UNC/UVA, possibly VT too if they decided on them instead of UVA...much in the same manner I think the SEC had right of first refusal for Texas/Oklahoma. Those schools are more natural fits for the B10 than they are for the SEC, just like Texas/Oklahoma are more natural fits for the SEC.
I don't think the SEC is really a threat for any addition the B10 would realistically want and the SEC is "boxed in" so to speak now similar to the way the ACC/PAC12 are but obviously on a much higher level. The B1O has options if they choose to exercise them.
The only threat so to speak and it's not a threat to brand programs (they will always have a seat) is not from the SEC but just a whole shifting of the landscape of college athletics and if everyone including the SEC jettisoned the extra baggage and made a league of say 32 teams. I don't even know if that will ever happen even though some think it will. I don't think a lot of school admins want something like that and to be associated with some SEC schools frankly. If they can get a lot of money by being part of the B10 and/or having college packages spread out among various networks they don't need to give up their academic elitism/snobbery or whatever you want to call it. They can have their cake and eat it too. Not saying it won't happen but not a slam dunk IMO but that's not a SEC threat just an existential change to the college landscape.
What’s to stop the SEC from adding Ohio State, Penn State, and even USC and destroying the B1G and PAC12. This informal “alliance” seems pretty silly but it helps the ACC and Pac12. Warren has effectively taken the 2nd best conference in the country and elevated the 3rd and 4th to be on par with the B1G.
Eventually, I fear that a 2nd power conference could come from this “alliance” to compete with the SEC, and Rutgers may be left without a seat at the table.
Eventually, I fear that a 2nd power conference could come from this “alliance” to compete with the SEC, and Rutgers may be left without a seat at the table.
Last edited:
That’s not realistic that’s the thing. No one is leaving the B10. Only a formation of super league would be a “threat” and that requires everyone jettisoning the excess baggage including the SEC and I’m not sure that day will ever come for the reasons I stated. Couldn’t say that 100% sure it wouldn’t happen but again that’s not a SEC threat but a just an existential change to college football.
Last edited:
Except that we’re supposed to be leading this clusterf of an alliance. The B1G just took themselves out of the running. If USC, UCLA, Cal, or Oregon get cold feet and want a bigger conference payout, they have one option—the SEC.
Where do you get that idea? If any school in the PAC12 wants to leave, the B10 will likely be their first call and then it also depends on the tv networks. If the money isn't there for the B10, it won't be there for the SEC either.
As I stated in this thread that's the "biggest" news out of this presser today. Nothing stops the B10 or anyone from adding schools if they so choose if/when this alliance thing doesn't work out. There's nothing legally binding.
Lots of us alums out here that have represented RU when they've ventured West at Cal, Fresno St., Washington and Washington St. Would welcome seeing the team out hear if not every year, every other year or every two years.
Lots of somewhat negative articles out there from today's events. not surprised as anything vague without details never plays well with the media. Did find Thamel's writeup interesting as he brings up the Big Ten's expansion plans (not happening) and the Big 12's plight.
sports.yahoo.com
6 takeaways on the 'alliance' that could shake up college football
There's still plenty to be skeptical about when it comes to the alliance between the ACC, Big Ten and Pac-12. Here are the six biggest takeaways.
Exactly the point I made about the number 16 for conferences. There’s nothing mythical or magical about these numbers. It’s who is inside the numbers that matters and what the networks will pay for who is in them that matters. The number itself is irrelevant.Lots of somewhat negative articles out there from today's events. not surprised as anything vague without details never plays well with the media. Did find Thamel's writeup interesting as he brings up the Big Ten's expansion plans (not happening) and the Big 12's plight.
6 takeaways on the 'alliance' that could shake up college football
There's still plenty to be skeptical about when it comes to the alliance between the ACC, Big Ten and Pac-12. Here are the six biggest takeaways.
from the article:
While there was speculation for years that there’d be 64 teams remaining in the four super leagues, the reality is that we’re headed toward an era with four power conferences and 57 teams. That doesn’t roll off the tongue or fit in a bracket, but the alliance widens the moat between the haves and the have-nots. And the remaining Big 12 schools are have-nots. There could be additions to the 57, but the leagues will be judicious about adding outsiders and dividing up their revenue pie to do so.
One industry source summed it up this way: “There’s your Super League. I don’t see that number going up (from 57) anytime soon. I could see [AAC commissioner Mike Aresco] and others fighting it. And maybe the best one or two schools could break in with significant and repeated success. There was never magic to 64. It looks good and it’s an even number. But you’re not going to sacrifice tens of millions of dollars to get to some number that doesn’t really matter. You don’t need 64 for scheduling or the College Football Playoff. It’s a big round number people like, but it’s just not needed.”
WTF is the B1G doing?? We’re still one of the big boys on the block and should be the aggressor here. Alliances are for those who strive to be one of the big boys. This is ridiculous. Amateur hour.
I think the B1G presidents are the ones leading this alliance formation actually. The Big Ten is the big boy with the SEC, but there is still a Power 5 and a deal in college football amongst the conferences of such. and now the SEC has decided to backstab one of those and make a side deal with ESPN with future plans that could destroy college football. The Big Ten presidents absolutely do not want that, and so they are fighting fire with fire by basically rounding up the troops that are left and going to war with ESECPN to save college sports
Nothing changes with this alliance whether it works or not…the B10 is still one of the big boys on the block and will still be making lots of money either way.
BTW when this news first came out I said I favor expansion and was one of the first if not the first to mention 4-6 additions from the PAC12 and creating. a national super premium sports property that would eventually look east to the ACC and might snag ND in the process as a 24 team conference. Some here think that was crazy.
But it depends on money being there for that many extra mouths from the PAC12 at present and no one knows the answer to that. When I ask what would you do if the answer is no it’s not there from the networks currently no one ever answers. Do you have an answer? So if the money isn’t there for now and the appetite isn’t there to upset the applecart so much this alliance will have to do for the moment.
While I favor expansion it doesn’t mean there has to be panic or hysterics at present if it doesn’t happen now. The B10 is still a premier conference that will make lots of money and while it may not be the top dog in finances in the future it’s not like it will be 30-40M behind the SEC either. Maybe like -10M just like the SEC is now compared to the B10 and with one or possibly two tv deals coming up before the SEC expires with ESPN maybe they still stay on top who knows. Point is the B10 isn’t going to be the PAC12/ACC.
TheKnightReport - TKR TV: ACC, B1G and Pac-12 discuss the new alliance between the three
Commissioners from the ACC, Big Ten and Pac-12 discuss the new alliance between the three conferences.
rutgers.rivals.com
I don’t think they will do this. It was previously mentioned somewhere that they will drop divisions and keep 3 rivalry games. That makes more sense and get the two top rated teams in the championship game.
From the Athletic:
A group of athletic directors from all three conferences has met in recent weeks to discuss the alliance possibilities, and the same group is now expected to explore potential scheduling solutions. The roster includes Clemson’s Dan Radakovich, North Carolina’s Bubba Cunningham, Syracuse’s John Wildhack and Virginia’s Carla Williams from the ACC; Iowa’s Gary Barta, Ohio State’s Gene Smith and Penn State’s Sandy Barbour from the Big Ten; and Cal’s Jim Knowlton, Oregon’s Rob Mullens, Washington State’s Pat Chun and USC’s Mike Bohn from the Pac-12. Sources told The Athletic it’s possible that the composition of the group changes moving forward.
A group of athletic directors from all three conferences has met in recent weeks to discuss the alliance possibilities, and the same group is now expected to explore potential scheduling solutions. The roster includes Clemson’s Dan Radakovich, North Carolina’s Bubba Cunningham, Syracuse’s John Wildhack and Virginia’s Carla Williams from the ACC; Iowa’s Gary Barta, Ohio State’s Gene Smith and Penn State’s Sandy Barbour from the Big Ten; and Cal’s Jim Knowlton, Oregon’s Rob Mullens, Washington State’s Pat Chun and USC’s Mike Bohn from the Pac-12. Sources told The Athletic it’s possible that the composition of the group changes moving forward.
For some reason these three conference felt compelled to announce something related to this alliance before there was much meat on the bones. Perhaps to slow the speculation about additional conference moves or to make sure the college playoff expansion plan is properly vetted? While I would welcome some rationalization of the current emphasis on college athletics over their primary role in education, I am not inclined to believe that is a top priority at this time.
With regard to where the B1G stands as a preference to schools who might entertain making a move at some point, while I agree that UNC and UVA are more academically/athletically aligned with the B1G, I think if the SEC was to get aggressive with further expansion, these two would be very high on the their list given the size of the respective markets and the lack of overlap with existing conference members.
41 schools with disparate interests, all aligned under the umbrella of an alliance with absolutely zero paperwork behind it. But thankfully they all looked each other in the eyes, so we're good. What could possibly go wrong here?
Probably just a chance for the ACC and PAC12 to get a reading on Warren so they can fleece him in the near future. The B1G will probably be the corn schools, Rutgers, and remnants of the B12/AAC soon.
No, really you can’t. Additionally, remember I said after Texass and Oklahoma announced their move to the SEC that the Big 12(little 8) will be extinct by July 1sr, 2022.
being that the NCAA apparently wasn't in violation of anti trust when defining what student athletes could and couldn't receive, hard to see how conferences acting as a block through said "alliance" could be, if they weren't when acting as a block though the NCAA.
on a side note, the NFL and NBA are exempt from similar anti trust issues, otherwise salary caps would be illegal.
also, not sure how much big telecom wants to shine any lights on anti trust issues these days.
that said, i've maintained here that "expansion" was more about eliminating the B12 and ACC as competitors for TV contracts, than it was about adding schools.
that's because almost no schools, including most original B10 members, are capable of adding more revenue than an additional cut of the already national revenue pie would take away, due to the reality that the B10 already had a national revenue model, and any addition could only marginally increase revenues regionally.
OSU is probably the only legacy B10 school that could likely do so, though Mich or PSU perhaps could make an argument being they have national brand names.
that said, it's impossible to objectively say any could, since adding more revenue than an additional cut would take is always totally dependent on how much a school could add in future negotiations, which is literally impossible to do even for the conference commissioner or head of the networks.
for example, you buy a house and sell it 15 yrs later.
before you sell it the wife talks you into spending $65,000 redoing the kitchen, baths, hardwood floors which you had carpeted, and fixing the wall in front.
when you sell the house you get $85,000 more than you paid 15 yrs ago.
it's literally impossible to objectively breakdown how much, if any, of that additional $85,000 was due to renovations you made, and how much was due to the real estate mkt 15 yrs later.
not even the buyer of the house could give you a definitive answer as to how much he would have paid had you not done the renovations, since he was never actually confronted with having to make that decision.
just as Disney, Fox, CBS, were never actually confronted with deciding how much they would bid for B10 rights had RU, Neb, and UMd, never been added, thus neither the network heads nor Delany will ever know the answer to an only hypothetical question, that can never be anything other than hypothetical...
thus being that it is difficult, if not impossible, for most schools to ever add what an additional slice of an already national revenue pie would take, the money imo was always in eliminating competing conferences, not in adding schools, thus also further dividing the pie.
and i've always contended that Delany and others saw the huge discrepancy between what the NFL got negotiating as a monopoly, as compared to what major college got negotiating as separates, and against each other.
that said, if the alliance is really a negotiating cartel for future negotiations with pay tv over playoffs, and a voting block, which i'll guess it is on both, then perhaps the point of the alliance is to hope to achieve through a negotiating cartel, what otherwise would need be achieved by eliminating competitors through Merger & Acquisitions esque acquisitions, but without having to consolidate, and without losing schools that would be lost in consolidation, as the remaining B12 schools have been, and as some ACC, B10, and PAC, schools would inevitably be lost, if M&A forces were left to their own accord.
Last edited:
These conferences are controlled by voting members. I dont see the any members being voted out. Even the Big East was reluctant to boot Temple (Temple made it impossible not to).
So the idea of the SEC or B1G purging the dead wood as a way of creating a super conference with only the top 32 teams included is really a non-starter.
So the idea of the SEC or B1G purging the dead wood as a way of creating a super conference with only the top 32 teams included is really a non-starter.
This most likely not true.
Going to your frequent "Mergers & Acquistions" analogy - a company absolutely consults with their partners before making a move.
How will this impact our credit rating/ability to raise funds in the future.
If the overall impact of the merger is a negative, then don't make it.
Isn't this exactly what ESPN did with the ACC/SEC expansions?
Add these teams (SU, Pitt) and here is how much more we will give you.
To think the BIG didn't consult with FOX and what potential numbers would be with or without the expansion candidates is ridiculous.
"Hey FOX, we just added NU, RU and MD. What's that? We are going to get less money now??? But we already accepted them. Oh well."
To your specific house analogy - again completely wrong.
You absolutely consult a RE agent when listing house and discuss how valuable making improvements would be.
Example - reasonable to expect 100k price.
However, if you spend 10k in additions - reasonable to get 120k.
Then you make the improvements and net additional 10k.
If they say - 10k in improvements would only expect a 5k increase in price - then you don't make improvements.
Same as a conference adding a team and discussing with TV partners.
Saw a comment by Mandel in an Athletic article regarding expansion of the playoff who would be able to bid on extra playoff games and the mixed messages given by Andy Staples and him and others. He says Andy Staples mentioning that extra playoff games (first round and quarters) being awarded to other networks besides ESPN is a theory floated out there but hasn't been tested. He says most believe ESPN would say adding extra rounds materially changed the product they're paying for so they would have right of first refusal.
Thinking about it, wonder if the alliance and then Gee (CFP Board of Directors) voting no now increases the probability of Texas/OU (especially in OU's case) staying in the B12 for the full 4 years. Without playoff expansion the chances of OU making them (as they regularly have been) goes down if by some chance they went to the SEC early which most thought would happen (I still thought anything more than a year early would be too much).
Some think the PAC12 would be desperate for expansion because they haven't had a rep in like 5 IIRC. But you know I think once the SEC expands, they too might be "desperate" to expand as well just for different reasons, as in 16 teams for only 4 (in practical terms really 1 or 2) spots isn't great. So that "desperation" might make them more amenable to whatever changes the alliance might suggest like limiting the number of teams per conference or maybe even a change in the number to 8 like most thought would be the next step (although I liked most of the concepts in the 12 idea that came out).
Some think the PAC12 would be desperate for expansion because they haven't had a rep in like 5 IIRC. But you know I think once the SEC expands, they too might be "desperate" to expand as well just for different reasons, as in 16 teams for only 4 (in practical terms really 1 or 2) spots isn't great. So that "desperation" might make them more amenable to whatever changes the alliance might suggest like limiting the number of teams per conference or maybe even a change in the number to 8 like most thought would be the next step (although I liked most of the concepts in the 12 idea that came out).
Similar threads
