Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
  On 8/23/2021 at 6:27 PM, BigHornedLurker said:

To be fair , a lot has changed in the past year. 

I think if these old geezers saw NIL come to fruition in conjunction with SEC TV money running away their opinions would probably been more favorable 

Expand  

Million dollar NILs for QBs who haven't started a game, big contracts for high school seniors, a way around scholarship limits for BYU....A lot of stuff has been a big change.

Posted

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/08/23/pac-12-football-strategy-timing-of-expansion-decision-future-of-the-conference-schedule-and-the-goal-of-the-three-league-alliance/

 

  Quote

The Pac-12 is facing a series of momentous strategic and structural decisions this year as the college sports landscape undergoes massive transformation.

One matter will be resolved before the others.

The conference will decide within weeks whether it wants to expand — but not which schools it might add.

“We’ll have a decision in the next couple weeks about whether or not we’re looking at expansion,’’ commissioner George Kliavkoff told the Hotline. “If we do look at expansion, then it would be a process that we would go through.

Expand  

 

  Quote

“But the first decision is whether or not we want to expand.”

The Pac-12 has formed an expansion working group that features high-ranking campus officials, with each of the six travel partners represented.

Specifics have not been disclosed, but a slew of conference executives possess valuable experience in the realignment game.

Expand  

 

 

  Quote

For example, Washington State president Kirk Schulz held the same position at Kansas State a decade ago when Texas pondered a jump to the Pac-10 and the Big 12 almost collapsed. USC athletic director Mike Bohn was Colorado’s AD when the Buffaloes jumped from the Big 12 to the Pac-10 in 2011.

The decision to pursue expansion doesn’t require approval by the presidents and chancellors, but a three-quarters vote of the CEO Group would be necessary for formal invitations to be extended to any new members.

Expand  

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

  • Like 1
Posted

This reminds me of that scene in Moneyball "Is there another first baseman like Giambi?" Scouts "no" Beane "and even if there was could we afford him?"

 

Texas and Oklahoma were the Belle's of the Ball. There are no other schools to add that come close to adding that value. And I'm sorry, but teaming up so Purdue can Play Oregon State or Wake Forest against Northwestern. Nobody give an absolute f*ck about those games...

 

Sure USC vs Ohio State. And maybe a Penn St vs Clemson/Miami/FSU make for good TV ratings. Everything else however is dogsh*t. 

 

One thing I will give the SEC credit for is at least all of the fan bases care and the schools all try to be better. The other conferences have major problems because they have a bunch of leaches that really offer nothing:

Boston College, Duke, Wake Forest, Rutgers, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Maryland, etc....... Nobody gives AF about watching these schools play each other in football. There is no value there to be had. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

If true, no big surprise here. Every team that bailed on their conference began play the following year in their new leagues. Good news for us is ESPN will pay for the buyout while divesting themselves of LHN.

IDGAF how 0u pays for it. 

Posted
  On 8/22/2021 at 3:24 AM, sportsbay said:

The alliance will try to contain or minimalize the SEC.  They are going to want to keep the 4 team playoff.  This will force the remaining conferences to go to 16 teams if they want to play along.  I think the grand design will be to force each of the 4 conferences to send their champion to the playoff.  Likely there will be some sort of playoff within the conferences.  Think of a 4 team playoff within each conference which will essentially be a 16 team playoff.  This format will keep the SEC from packing the playoff.

Expand  

It's funny how pissed the Big 10 and Pac are. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it the B10 that sparked this whole thing taking corn while the Pac was in talks with the entire B12 south?  And didn't the B10 make another run at us via tOSU that led to the  DeLoss "we have a tech problem, inferring we aren't moving without a travel partner? (tech back then)

It was bound to happen when it dawned on them that with UT, OU, UF, UG, LSU, and 'bama all in the same conference, the SEC can put a premium game on practically every weekend that can compete with, if not surpass anything the other three conferences can produce.  

Without some major cannibalization taking place, the SEC is poised to leave even the B10 in the dust in T1-T2 contracts long term.  You can bet there is a lot of empty promises being made between the three, as the B10 sharpens it's knife and the other two try to figure out how to mortally wound the other as they hold their breath

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
  On 8/24/2021 at 1:40 AM, Gaffords said:

It's funny how pissed the Big 10 and Pac are. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it the B10 that sparked this whole thing taking corn while the Pac was in talks with the entire B12 south?  And didn't the B10 make another run at us via tOSU that led to the  DeLoss "we have a tech problem, inferring we aren't moving without a travel partner? (tech back then)

It was bound to happen when it dawned on them that with UT, OU, UF, UG, LSU, and 'bama all in the same conference, the SEC can put a premium game on practically every weekend that can compete with, if not surpass anything the other three conferences can produce.  

Without some major cannibalization taking place, the SEC is poised to leave even the B10 in the dust in T1-T2 contracts long term.  You can bet there is a lot of empty promises being made between the three, as the B10 sharpens it's knife and the other two try to figure out how to mortally wound the other as they hold their breath

 

 

Expand  

Yes.  As I've said before, the B1G initiated the current arms race in 2010 when they poached Nebraska.  They started it, it's entirely their fault.

And the SEC just ended the arms race.  They terminated it with extreme prejudice.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
  On 8/24/2021 at 1:04 AM, DFW Horn said:

If true, no big surprise here. Every team that bailed on their conference began play the following year in their new leagues. Good news for us is ESPN will pay for the buyout while divesting themselves of LHN.

IDGAF how 0u pays for it. 

Expand  

OU will come up with the jack, heard they hired a couple consultants in an RV in the New Mexican desert.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
  On 8/24/2021 at 12:45 AM, RoyalBevo21 said:

This reminds me of that scene in Moneyball "Is there another first baseman like Giambi?" Scouts "no" Beane "and even if there was could we afford him?"

 

Texas and Oklahoma were the Belle's of the Ball. There are no other schools to add that come close to adding that value. And I'm sorry, but teaming up so Purdue can Play Oregon State or Wake Forest against Northwestern. Nobody give an absolute f*ck about those games...

 

Sure USC vs Ohio State. And maybe a Penn St vs Clemson/Miami/FSU make for good TV ratings. Everything else however is dogsh*t. 

 

One thing I will give the SEC credit for is at least all of the fan bases care and the schools all try to be better. The other conferences have major problems because they have a bunch of leaches that really offer nothing:

Boston College, Duke, Wake Forest, Rutgers, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Maryland, etc....... Nobody gives AF about watching these schools play each other in football. There is no value there to be had. 

Expand  

The Belle's what of the ball?

Posted
  On 8/24/2021 at 12:45 AM, RoyalBevo21 said:

Texas and Oklahoma were the Belle's of the Ball. There are no other schools to add that come close to adding that value.

Expand  

Norte Dame is the only one left.  After that it would have to be consolidation.  The Big Ten merging with most (but not all) of the PAC12 would be pretty impactful.  Cutting out the dead weight will be more impactful than adding more bloat. Cutting out Purdue (#3 in their state) or Wake Forest (#4 in their state) or Oregon State (#2 in their state with only 4 million population) would help divide the pie into larger pieces and provide for more quality content with the teams that remain.  Hell cutting Oregon State and Washington State and going back to the PAC10 would provide better content simply because you could get USC/UCLA playing Oregon/Washington every year.  Expansion is not always the answer, contraction can be more impactful.

That being said, you need some cannon fodder, so if you’re going to have those types of school they should likely bring good media markets, academics, and success in other sports (like basketball or baseball).  Cutting out the entire state of Indiana (pop7mil) by culling both Purdue and Indiana University or Illinois (pop13mil) by cutting the University of Illinois and Northwestern would not be wise.  Same thing goes for Rutgers, Syracuse, and Boston College which are the only Power 4 schools in an area that represents over 40 million in population.

Posted
  On 8/24/2021 at 3:23 AM, Hurtlocker said:

 

 

Expand  

I didn’t think they would do it but if it’s true that they all are scheduling 1 team each from the other two conferences then they are essentially reducing any matchups with Sec teams to next to nothing. This is a Cold War move. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
  On 8/24/2021 at 3:33 AM, HornsofBevo said:

I didn’t think they would do it but if it’s true that they all are scheduling 1 team each from the other two conferences then they are essentially reducing any matchups with Sec teams to next to nothing. This is a Cold War move. 

Expand  

The I8 will still schedule the SEC....they need the dues.  

Posted
  On 8/24/2021 at 3:33 AM, HornsofBevo said:

I didn’t think they would do it but if it’s true that they all are scheduling 1 team each from the other two conferences then they are essentially reducing any matchups with Sec teams to next to nothing. This is a Cold War move. 

Expand  

I don't think they will do away with the ACC-SEC rivalry games like FSU-UF, Clemson-So Car, and GT-UGA. Too much $ at stake. 

Posted
  On 8/24/2021 at 3:57 AM, 6th Street said:

I don't think they will do away with the ACC-SEC rivalry games like FSU-UF, Clemson-So Car, and GT-UGA. Too much $ at stake. 

Expand  

yeah it seems to be about dropping to 8 conference games and adding more OOC match ups.

I don't think this is an isolate the SEC move as it is a add more interesting match ups over all and gain a voting block in the process.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
  On 8/24/2021 at 4:07 AM, Hurtlocker said:

yeah it seems to be about dropping to 8 conference games and adding more OOC match ups.

I don't think this is an isolate the SEC move as it is a add more interesting match ups over all and gain a voting block in the process.

Expand  

Pat Forde essentially said this in his recent podcast. 

The SEC’s likely move is go to 10 conference games. Saban is on record of wanting 10 conference games and ESPN would love it. 

My guess is we’d play Rice and a UT System school every year in a 2 game OOC schedule. 

I do think it hurts the sport. Texas-Michigan, Texas-USC and the like are fun OOC games and destination trips for fans. 

Edited by billfromlaketravis
Posted
  On 8/24/2021 at 3:57 AM, 6th Street said:

I don't think they will do away with the ACC-SEC rivalry games like FSU-UF, Clemson-So Car, and GT-UGA. Too much $ at stake. 

Expand  

PAC12 (w/ 9 conference games) annual OOC rivalries- Stanford/ND, USC/ND, Utah/BYU,  Colorado/Colorado St

B1G (w/ 9 conference games) annual OOC rivalries- Iowa/Iowa St; irregular schedule Norte Dame vs Michigan/Mich St/Purdue/Indiana/Northwestern

ACC (w/ 8 conference games) annual OOC rivalries- UF/FSU, SC/Clemson, UGA/GT, UK/Louisville; irregular schedule Miami/UF, UNC/SC, plus 5 games a year with ND,

Posted
  On 8/24/2021 at 5:00 AM, billfromlaketravis said:

Pat Forde essentially said this in his recent podcast. 

The SEC’s likely move is go to 10 conference games. Saban is on record of wanting 10 conference games and ESPN would love it. 

My guess is we’d play Rice and a UT System school every year in a 2 game OOC schedule. 

I do think it hurts the sport. Texas-Michigan, Texas-USC and the like are fun OOC games and destination trips for fans. 

Expand  

Why jump to 10 from 8?  How is that going to work with UF/UGA/SC/UK? 9 seems like the sweet spot.  1 good OOC game and two home games.  They should also ban FCS cupcakes, there are plenty of FBS schools in the SEC footprint that would sell them a game.

I honestly hope we sign a long term home and home all sports deal with Rice getting them back on the schedule annually would be the cherry on top of this move for us.  Swapping aggy/Arkansas/Rice for Tech/TCU/Baylor would be perfect.  This could be our Norte Dame/Navy rivalry.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Here's The Athletic article.  Not much meat to the article that hasn't already been broached elsewhere, or thought of here, whatnot.  

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Posted
  On 8/24/2021 at 5:23 AM, TKthunder2 said:

Why jump to 10 from 8?  How is that going to work with UF/UGA/SC/UK? 9 seems like the sweet spot.  1 good OOC game and two home games.  They should also ban FCS cupcakes, there are plenty of FBS schools in the SEC footprint that would sell them a game.

I honestly hope we sign a long term home and home all sports deal with Rice getting them back on the schedule annually would be the cherry on top of this move for us.  Swapping aggy/Arkansas/Rice for Tech/TCU/Baylor would be perfect.  This could be our Norte Dame/Navy rivalry.

Expand  

I think going to at least 9 is very likely so more SEC schools can play each other with some regularity. 
 

If the Big Ten, ACC, and PAC 12 schedule only each other, the marquee OOC match ups start drying up for SEC schools. Notre Dame, and well that’s it. The SEC would likely have to go to 10 conference games in this scenario to schedule marquee games during the regular season. 
 

I doubt there’s much interest for SEC-Irate 8/AAC match ups. See the Tech thread. 

Posted
  On 8/24/2021 at 5:23 AM, TKthunder2 said:

Why jump to 10 from 8?  How is that going to work with UF/UGA/SC/UK? 9 seems like the sweet spot.  1 good OOC game and two home games.  They should also ban FCS cupcakes, there are plenty of FBS schools in the SEC footprint that would sell them a game.

I honestly hope we sign a long term home and home all sports deal with Rice getting them back on the schedule annually would be the cherry on top of this move for us.  Swapping aggy/Arkansas/Rice for Tech/TCU/Baylor would be perfect.  This could be our Norte Dame/Navy rivalry.

Expand  

You don't pick up Texas and Oklahoma to play them against LESS SEC schools.   

The SEC has about 84 home games a year currently, 56 of those being conference games, and sells about 60-65% of those on their deals.  That's about 1 CBS, 0.5 ABC and 1 ESPN a week, The rest end up on the SEC Network.

Adding Oklahoma and Texas gets you about 96 home games, but moving to 10 conference games pushes you up to 80 conference games, which is a lot more valuable.   At that point you're pretty much guaranteed 2 ABC and 2 ESPN games a weekend, every week of the season, with the rest falling to ESPN 2 and the SEC Network.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
  On 8/24/2021 at 1:08 PM, Hurtlocker said:
You don't pick up Texas and Oklahoma to play them against LESS SEC schools.   
The SEC has about 84 home games a year currently, 56 of those being conference games, and sells about 60-65% of those on their deals.  That's about 1 CBS, 0.5 ABC and 1 ESPN a week, The rest end up on the SEC Network.
Adding Oklahoma and Texas gets you about 96 home games, but moving to 10 conference games pushes you up to 80 conference games, which is a lot more valuable.   At that point you're pretty much guaranteed 2 ABC and 2 ESPN games a weekend, every week of the season, with the rest falling to ESPN 2 and the SEC Network.
And LHN/SECN2 the Ocho!!!
Posted

 

  On 8/24/2021 at 4:07 AM, Hurtlocker said:

yeah it seems to be about dropping to 8 conference games and adding more OOC match ups.

I don't think this is an isolate the SEC move as it is a add more interesting match ups over all and gain a voting block in the process.

Expand  

It's funny, the biggest complaint lodged against the SEC, justifiably, was that they didn't play enough conference games. Well, now they get Texas and OU, and they're likely doing away with FCS bullshit, and the move by the other conferences is to reduce their conference games and play more OOC. Sure, they think they'll be adding these premium matchups, but I don't think we'll be seeing Ohio State, Oregon, USC, and Clemson rotating every 3 years. It's going to have to be a lot of UCLA versus Nebraska in there, and no one gives one flying fuck about that shit. Unless they are deliberately manipulating these alliance schedules every single season for maximum matchup value...are they really adding anything of merit? And if they do manipulate it heavily, there's going to be a lot of upset little brother conference members getting pissed off that they're perpetually flying to Corvalis and Pullman, not getting visits from Ohio State and USC. That doesn't seem like it's going to be good for membership harmony.

Also, I can't wait to hear what logical reasoning they block the expansion of a playoff, because the only one that exists is their fucking butthurt and willingness to cut off their nose to spite their stupid, pinched faces. The playoff expansion benefits those conferences more than ever before now with the SEC expansion, but they want to limit slots for their conferences to maybe catch lightning in a bottle? Well, ok then. Have at it, renobs. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

By playing 8 conference games and playing each other as little as possible, the SEC was gaming the system an inflating their records over conferences that played 9.  They also strategically scheduled a P5 OOC game early and a weak OOC FCS team late in the season to bump their ranking all to get as many into the playoff/NY6 bowls as possible.  Love it or hate it, that strategy worked.

To go from that to 10 conference games and no P5 or FCS OOC games is going to deflate their rankings and make it harder for them to get multiple playoff spots or NY6 bowl unless the system significantly changes.

Now if the SEC is about to lock up a deal with 4 NY6 bowls (Cotton, Sugar, Peach, Orange) and have guaranteed playoffs spot for both its division champions then this plan would make perfect sense.  So would a total breakaway from the CFP/NCAA scenario.  But assuming the SEC still needs the other conferences, both of those options seem unlikely which is why I’m not seeing strategic value in 10 conference games (outside of just TV money).

The SEC hype has got way out of control.  By going to 9 conference games and banning FCS teams you’ll lower some of the SEC rankings which should bring them closer in line to the rest of the other conferences.  That should benefit the sport nationally and increase their recruiting without significantly impacting the SEC.  Despite the bravado the SEC needs other conferences unless they expand to 30 teams and make their own league.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
  On 8/24/2021 at 1:35 PM, TKthunder2 said:

By playing 8 conference games and playing each other as little as possible, the SEC was gaming the system an inflating their records over conferences that played 9.  They also strategically scheduled a P5 OOC game early and a weak OOC FCS team late in the season to bump their ranking all to get as many into the playoff/NY6 bowls as possible.  Love it or hate it, that strategy worked.

To go from that to 10 conference games and no P5 or FCS OOC games is going to deflate their rankings and make it harder for them to get multiple playoff spots or NY6 bowl unless the system significantly changes.

Now if the SEC is about to lock up a deal with 4 NY6 bowls (Cotton, Sugar, Peach, Orange) and have guaranteed playoffs spot for both its division champions then this plan would make perfect sense.  So would a total breakaway from the CFP/NCAA scenario.  But assuming the SEC still needs the other conferences, both of those options seem unlikely which is why I’m not seeing strategic value in 10 conference games (outside of just TV money).

The SEC hype has got way out of control.  By going to 9 conference games and banning FCS teams you’ll lower some of the SEC rankings which should bring them closer in line to the rest of the other conferences.  That should benefit the sport nationally and increase their recruiting without significantly impacting the SEC.  Despite the bravado the SEC needs other conferences unless they expand to 30 teams and make their own league.

Expand  

I get what you're saying here, I just fundamentally disagree. The march to an 8 or 12 team playoff is inevitable. Even with some SEC deflation by playing more games, you've got to think a committee picking the top 12 teams is going to find 3 SEC teams spots. I'd argue as many as 5. Because there will be Clemson and Ohio State and then a lot of 3 loss teams looking to get into it as well, and having 2-3 of those loses against higher ranked conference competition is going to look better on a resume. 

That's why all other conferences should be on board with more spots, including the SEC. Right now the 4 team is Ohio State, Clemson, 2 SEC teams and occasionally a Washington or Notre Dame, maybe Oregon soon. You don't think the other 3 major conferences will realize that they might be better off letting in 3-4 SEC teams, but still having an extra 4-5 to split amongst themselves, or however the math breaks out?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
  On 8/24/2021 at 1:27 PM, SydneyCarton said:

 

It's funny, the biggest complaint lodged against the SEC, justifiably, was that they didn't play enough conference games. Well, now they get Texas and OU, and they're likely doing away with FCS bullshit, and the move by the other conferences is to reduce their conference games and play more OOC. Sure, they think they'll be adding these premium matchups, but I don't think we'll be seeing Ohio State, Oregon, USC, and Clemson rotating every 3 years. It's going to have to be a lot of UCLA versus Nebraska in there, and no one gives one flying fuck about that shit. Unless they are deliberately manipulating these alliance schedules every single season for maximum matchup value...are they really adding anything of merit? And if they do manipulate it heavily, there's going to be a lot of upset little brother conference members getting pissed off that they're perpetually flying to Corvalis and Pullman, not getting visits from Ohio State and USC. That doesn't seem like it's going to be good for membership harmony.

Also, I can't wait to hear what logical reasoning they block the expansion of a playoff, because the only one that exists is their fucking butthurt and willingness to cut off their nose to spite their stupid, pinched faces. The playoff expansion benefits those conferences more than ever before now with the SEC expansion, but they want to limit slots for their conferences to maybe catch lightning in a bottle? Well, ok then. Have at it, renobs. 

Expand  

Yeah, honestly, I think this is a Pac play to be honest.   They want to drop to 8 conference games to stop beating each other up, but know they can't with out other P5 games on the docket.   Doesn't hurt the ACC either.   They have 14 teams and only Louisville, Clemson, FSU and GTech play SEC crossovers every year, that leaves ten teams looking for better games as it is.    The only reason I see the Big Ten dropping to 8 games is if they expand and add content.

As for the playoffs, my guess is it isn't blocking it, its slowing it down.   If media partners don't want to invest in CFB because they can't get a bite of the post season, then they're going to want to add to the structure to guarantee they do.  One idea I heard is blowing up the bowl system and having it all run through CFB (as opposed to a patchwork of individual interests) and then the first round would be on campuses and the next round would be in stadiums set in each conference's footprint, with domed stadiums being used in the north, each controlled by that conference and bid out.   So the SEC could have a game with ESPN, and Fox could have one with the Pac, and the Big Ten CBS, etc.    Then rotate the champ game like the NFL does every year or couple years.

The thinking being if Fox can get some of the Big Ten's post season, they'll be more likely to invest in the Big Ten's regular season.   As it sits now, they basically market the ESPN's end of year games.   I'd also expect they hard code in more access, like limit the amount of teams per conference in the playoffs to three.

TLDR: expansion will happen, but likely at the end of the contract instead of 2 years before.

Posted
  On 8/24/2021 at 1:40 PM, SydneyCarton said:

I get what you're saying here, I just fundamentally disagree. The march to an 8 or 12 team playoff is inevitable. Even with some SEC deflation by playing more games, you've got to think a committee picking the top 12 teams is going to find 3 SEC teams spots. I'd argue as many as 5. Because there will be Clemson and Ohio State and then a lot of 3 loss teams looking to get into it as well, and having 2-3 of those loses against higher ranked conference competition is going to look better on a resume. 

That's why all other conferences should be on board with more spots, including the SEC. Right now the 4 team is Ohio State, Clemson, 2 SEC teams and occasionally a Washington or Notre Dame, maybe Oregon soon. You don't think the other 3 major conferences will realize that they might be better off letting in 3-4 SEC teams, but still having an extra 4-5 to split amongst themselves, or however the math breaks out?

Expand  

I agree with all that.  But that would be a significant system change which the “alliance” has come out against.  By sticking with the 4 team playoff, SEC will be virtually limited to a single playoff spot with a 10 conference games, but likely not 2 as they have been.  If this is a bet towards playoff expansion then so be it, but after seeing how the SEC operates these past 3 decades they typically don’t make changes that hurt their schools for future gain, but maybe Texas and OU are so big that they have a fuck it attitude now knowing that despite the voting numbers of the alliance, any league without the SEC will be considered inferior and they feel like they can throw their weight around even more so.

Posted
  On 8/24/2021 at 1:48 PM, TKthunder2 said:

I agree with all that.  But that would be a significant system change which the “alliance” has come out against.  By sticking with the 4 team playoff, SEC will be virtually limited to a single playoff spot with a 10 conference games, but likely not 2 as they have been.  If this is a bet towards playoff expansion then so be it, but after seeing how the SEC operates these past 3 decades they typically don’t make changes that hurt their schools for future gain, but maybe Texas and OU are so big that they have a fuck it attitude now knowing that despite the voting numbers of the alliance, any league without the SEC will be considered inferior and they feel like they can throw their weight around even more so.

Expand  

Well for starters, my entire point was that the alliance would be stupid to do it this way. For all the reasons I've illustrated. Additionally, you seem to think there's some zero sum game at stake where the SEC dilutes itself further with an extra conference game, but these "marquee matchups" between alliance members don't also result in more profile losses that folks have to take into account in the playoff committee. Because those are going to hurt the chances of non SEC teams as well. I don't see how anything fundamentally changes in the likelihood of guys getting into the playoffs in any different manner or ration we've been witnessing since the start of the playoffs. 

Posted

As an aside, the Big Ten moving to eight conference games allows them to add Kansas without a travel partner, of which there seems to be no suitable one currently.

Posted

So, if the “Alliance” commits to scheduling each other to strengthen their OOC games, wouldn’t there be advantages for the SEC and the big12 to do the same? Say the SEC offers to schedule their OOC games with the big12 in exchange for a reduced/elimination exit fee for Texas & OU. The SEC goes to 9 conference games and would get Texas/OU next year. The OOC game strength would be improved over the joke OOC games SEC plays now. The big12 probably keeps their P5 status and maybe adds 2-4 teams like Houston, Cincinnati, Memphis, and UCF. Obviously the big12 will never see the money they did with Texas/OU. But I would think the affiliation with the SEC would improve value for their next media contract. Hell, maybe ESPN throws them a bone to lock up all SEC games. 

Posted
  On 8/24/2021 at 1:52 PM, SydneyCarton said:

Well for starters, my entire point was that the alliance would be stupid to do it this way. For all the reasons I've illustrated. Additionally, you seem to think there's some zero sum game at stake where the SEC dilutes itself further with an extra conference game, but these "marquee matchups" between alliance members don't also result in more profile losses that folks have to take into account in the playoff committee. Because those are going to hurt the chances of non SEC teams as well. I don't see how anything fundamentally changes in the likelihood of guys getting into the playoffs in any different manner or ration we've been witnessing since the start of the playoffs. 

Expand  

Agree the alliance is stupid, short of sharing revenue it’s benefits are very little.  That being said, if they are smart about it they can rig their games to limit losses to their 2nd tier teams at the same time the SEC is increasing its annual number of losses.

The B1G/PAC drop to 8 conference games and schedule 2/3 marquee games a year while the rest are stacked in favor of their 2nd tier teams. Indiana plays Oregon St, UNC plays Rutgers, UCLA play Wake Forest, etc, etc which boosts the rankings of their 2nd tier teams which means their 1st tier teams will benefit when they beat them later in the season or if they pull out a win, their ranking will be high enough to be included in a NY6 bowl.  The marquee matchups are just a weak justification/high profile distraction for gaming the system.  40 alliance teams means 20 games a year (if they do this across the board) so 3 marquee games versus 17 games that are simply designed to game the system.

Posted
  On 8/24/2021 at 4:54 AM, closetohumping said:

Ou is finally selling all of the Indian scalps from their museum?

Expand  

At Italian leather prices, too. 
 

 

  On 8/24/2021 at 1:08 PM, Hurtlocker said:

You don't pick up Texas and Oklahoma to play them against LESS SEC schools.   

The SEC has about 84 home games a year currently, 56 of those being conference games, and sells about 60-65% of those on their deals.  That's about 1 CBS, 0.5 ABC and 1 ESPN a week, The rest end up on the SEC Network.

Adding Oklahoma and Texas gets you about 96 home games, but moving to 10 conference games pushes you up to 80 conference games, which is a lot more valuable.   At that point you're pretty much guaranteed 2 ABC and 2 ESPN games a weekend, every week of the season, with the rest falling to ESPN 2 and the SEC Network.

Expand  

 

Fuck it. Take over all the Disney channels too. Put the doormats on Disney Jr.

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
  On 8/24/2021 at 1:08 PM, Hurtlocker said:

You don't pick up Texas and Oklahoma to play them against LESS SEC schools.   

The SEC has about 84 home games a year currently, 56 of those being conference games, and sells about 60-65% of those on their deals.  That's about 1 CBS, 0.5 ABC and 1 ESPN a week, The rest end up on the SEC Network.

Adding Oklahoma and Texas gets you about 96 home games, but moving to 10 conference games pushes you up to 80 conference games, which is a lot more valuable.   At that point you're pretty much guaranteed 2 ABC and 2 ESPN games a weekend, every week of the season, with the rest falling to ESPN 2 and the SEC Network.

Expand  

IMO, this is what drives much of the value numbers being thrown around for adding Texas and OU to the SEC. With 10 conference games you're adding over 40% SEC content. If it is just 9 conference games you're still moving up to 72 SEC conference games which is 28% more SEC content.

Edited by ShaggyBevo RIP
Posted

The SEC doesn't set its conference schedule for more than the current year, and can react as it sees fit. As long as the playoff remains at 4 teams, I don't believe the SEC will make a move to 9 or 10 conference games.  If/when the playoff expands, so can the SEC's conference-game schedule. There's no either/or here.  

A quick move from 8 to 9 or even 10 conference games would involve buying out some scrub OOC opponents for a couple of years, but the SEC has more than enough money to absorb that.

 

 

 

Posted

Joe Cook

 

The proposed “Alliance” between the ACC, Big Ten and Pac-12 will become official at 2 p.m. ET today.

While there is a non-conference scheduling component to the agreement, do not expect those details to be fleshed out today. Due to existing contracts and a lack of certainty surrounding the expansion of the College Football Playoff, those details will have to wait.

Today’s announcement, which will reportedly involve speeches from ACC commissioner Jim Phillips, Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren and Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff, is largely a confirmation that the three leagues share common principles and will work together in the future.

“The main thing to expect today is a public acknowledgement of common values between the leagues and alignment around many topics affecting athletes and schools,” ESPN’s Adam Rittenberg tweeted Tuesday morning.

Which conferences stand to benefit the most from the agreement?

“The Pac-12, of the three leagues, is most engaged on alliance and may make individual adjustments (i.e. reducing 9 league games to 😎 sooner than later,” Rittenberg added. “Several people have told me the Pac-12 is ‘driving this.’”

The Pac-12, who is at a geographic disadvantage when it comes to television viewers and who has had just two teams make the playoff in its seven-year history, stands to benefit most from the agreement. Additionally, the Pac-12’s media deal with Fox and ESPN ends in 2024, and adding games with these conferences will add value.

The ACC, which has juggernaut Clemson but has lacked a second contender since Florida State’s run in the early 2010s, could use a few more high-level games.

As On3’s Eric Prisbell pointed out, the ACC is “uniquely positioned” in the Alliance.

“It neither produces the revenue of the robust Big Ten (distributing an industry-leading $54.3 million to each school) nor seeks national relevance like the Pac-12 (which has just two College Football Playoff berths in seven years),” Prisbell said. “And amid a landscape in which multi-billion-dollar media-rights deals fuel college football’s engine, the ACC possesses the media rights deal unlike the others.”

The ACC has a television deal with ESPN through 2036 that pays $17 million to each of its member schools each year. That payout is the lowest amongst the Power Five schools.

If the ACC can schedule more neutral-site games with teams from the Big Ten and the Pac-12, the idea is to have them broadcast on Fox instead of ESPN.

“The goal is to increase the value of the league without necessarily increasing its size, and creating more premium inventory is a step in that direction,” Prisbell said.

Big Ten in great shape regardless

Of the three conferences, the Big Ten is in the best shape on its own, but the move is a long-term decision. The Big Ten’s media rights deal expires in 2023. From the scheduling perspective, adding premium games with brands like Clemson and USC cannot hurt.

As previously noted, the scheduling details for the alliance will have to wait.

“Scheduling [out-of-conference] games *could* bring some $ but think of the logistics for ACC teams,” ESPN’s David Hale said. “Some already are scheduled out to 2026-27. If there’s not a serious $$ component to The Alliance & they’d have to buy out at least 1 opp per year, it’d cost teams a few million. What’s upside?”

Posted

I’m sure this is blindingly obvious, but I doubt sec will be removing tier 3 games to replace them with more tier 1 and 2 games unless the tv contracts change accordingly. 
 

if Disney is trying to corner the market on major college football, all of this spending makes sense. But even Disney must have a limit on the purse strings. 

Posted
  On 8/24/2021 at 2:30 PM, BurntOrange&White said:

Joe Cook

 

The proposed “Alliance” between the ACC, Big Ten and Pac-12 will become official at 2 p.m. ET today.

While there is a non-conference scheduling component to the agreement, do not expect those details to be fleshed out today. Due to existing contracts and a lack of certainty surrounding the expansion of the College Football Playoff, those details will have to wait.

Today’s announcement, which will reportedly involve speeches from ACC commissioner Jim Phillips, Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren and Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff, is largely a confirmation that the three leagues share common principles and will work together in the future.

“The main thing to expect today is a public acknowledgement of common values between the leagues and alignment around many topics affecting athletes and schools,” ESPN’s Adam Rittenberg tweeted Tuesday morning.

Which conferences stand to benefit the most from the agreement?

“The Pac-12, of the three leagues, is most engaged on alliance and may make individual adjustments (i.e. reducing 9 league games to 😎 sooner than later,” Rittenberg added. “Several people have told me the Pac-12 is ‘driving this.’”

The Pac-12, who is at a geographic disadvantage when it comes to television viewers and who has had just two teams make the playoff in its seven-year history, stands to benefit most from the agreement. Additionally, the Pac-12’s media deal with Fox and ESPN ends in 2024, and adding games with these conferences will add value.

The ACC, which has juggernaut Clemson but has lacked a second contender since Florida State’s run in the early 2010s, could use a few more high-level games.

As On3’s Eric Prisbell pointed out, the ACC is “uniquely positioned” in the Alliance.

“It neither produces the revenue of the robust Big Ten (distributing an industry-leading $54.3 million to each school) nor seeks national relevance like the Pac-12 (which has just two College Football Playoff berths in seven years),” Prisbell said. “And amid a landscape in which multi-billion-dollar media-rights deals fuel college football’s engine, the ACC possesses the media rights deal unlike the others.”

The ACC has a television deal with ESPN through 2036 that pays $17 million to each of its member schools each year. That payout is the lowest amongst the Power Five schools.

If the ACC can schedule more neutral-site games with teams from the Big Ten and the Pac-12, the idea is to have them broadcast on Fox instead of ESPN.

“The goal is to increase the value of the league without necessarily increasing its size, and creating more premium inventory is a step in that direction,” Prisbell said.

Big Ten in great shape regardless

Of the three conferences, the Big Ten is in the best shape on its own, but the move is a long-term decision. The Big Ten’s media rights deal expires in 2023. From the scheduling perspective, adding premium games with brands like Clemson and USC cannot hurt.

As previously noted, the scheduling details for the alliance will have to wait.

“Scheduling [out-of-conference] games *could* bring some $ but think of the logistics for ACC teams,” ESPN’s David Hale said. “Some already are scheduled out to 2026-27. If there’s not a serious $$ component to The Alliance & they’d have to buy out at least 1 opp per year, it’d cost teams a few million. What’s upside?”

Expand  

Hummm....I seemed to have missed exactly where the rest of the Big 12 fits in with all of this.

I'm sure it's in there somewhere....I'll go back and read it again more carefully....  ;)

 

 

Posted
  On 8/24/2021 at 4:07 AM, Hurtlocker said:

yeah it seems to be about dropping to 8 conference games and adding more OOC match ups.

I don't think this is an isolate the SEC move as it is a add more interesting match ups over all and gain a voting block in the process.

Expand  

Unless they plan on scattering their OOCs throughout the season, their OOC games will be competing with their own ooc games for best slots. This "alliance" won't last long once the powerhouses from each conference feels like they are getting fucked out of prime time slots.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...