Realignment talk not going away

[BigHornedLurker 1,952]

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 

[DCLonghorn 244]

 

Crackle!

[bullet 1,597]

1 hour ago, 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 

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.

[Francisco 2.0 32,395]

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.

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

Spoiler

Kliavkoff has not specified which schools are interested in joining the Pac-12. But the list likely includes many, if not all of the universities in the Big 12, which is reeling after the departure of Oklahoma and Texas to the SEC.

However, multiple industry sources contacted by the Hotline in recent weeks believe the most likely outcome for the conference is to remain at 12.

“No schools really add value,” said a source not affiliated with the Pac-12.

Each Pac-12 athletic department will receive approximately $24 million this year from the regular-season broadcast agreements with ESPN and Fox, according to the term sheet of the Tier 1 contract obtained by the Hotline.

That figure is expected to soar when the next media rights deals are negotiated in 18-24 months.

Any new member would have to bring enough media value to increase the windfall for the existing schools and help the conference narrow the revenue gap with the Big Ten and SEC.

Without Texas and Oklahoma propping them up, none of the Big 12 universities are believed to carry enough media rights value to be worthwhile to the Pac-12.

“All the conversations I’ve had are really focused on closing the revenue gap,’’ Schulz told the Hotline recently. “That still drives a lot of the decision-making. You could pick schools that make us a 16- or 18-team conference, but the next question is, ‘OK, how does that close the revenue gap? …

“The second thing I hear a lot about is institutional fit. It’s not about a particular state. It’s more about similar styles institutionally. We have a major brand presence on the West Coast. If we add schools from different geographic regions, does that fit well?”

While Kliavkoff and his expansion advisors focus on the size of the conference, another group is diving deep into the structure of the football product.

Merton Hanks, the Pac-12’s chief of football operations, is working with all the athletic directors and head coaches to plot a strategy on several key issues:

— Whether to drop to eight conference games.

— If the division format should be continued or eliminated.

— How to tweak the conference schedule to give teams the best chance for success.

“Merton’s charge is to look at everything we decide at the conference level to optimize for College Football Playoff invitations,” Kliavkoff said. “The timeline is to have a first set of working recommendations by the end of the football season.

“Once we have recommendations, then some of them, I’m sure, we could do immediately — when we put bye weeks in for next year, as an example.

“But some of them, like whether we go to eight conference games instead of nine, may take a little longer because of obligations in our current media rights deal for how many conference games we play.”

The Pac-12 plays 54 conference games; remove one per team and the total drops to 48. ESPN and Fox assuredly would balk at a scenario in which those six openings were filled by non-conference matchups against creampuffs.

“Unless you come up with a solution that’s more attractive for TV for that ninth game,” Kliavkoff said, “you’re playing nine conference games.”

That model could change once the Pac-12’s new media rights contract begins in the fall or 2024, and there’s an obvious option that could intrigue potential media partners:

A scheduling partnership with the Big Ten and ACC that creates a series of high-profile matchups each season.

The three conferences are discussing a potential alliance in the wake of the SEC voting to add Texas and Oklahoma. According to a report in The Athletic, the alliance could be formally announced in the next week.

However, multiple industry sources have described the scheduling piece as secondary to matters of policy and governance. And no issue carries more immediacy for the tripartite alliance than a possible vote to delay expansion of the College Football Playoff until the next contract cycle.

If the 12-team format is implemented prior to the 2026 season, then ESPN would have the option to become the sole rights-holder in a non-competitive bidding process.

(ESPN’s hegemony over college football is a significant issue, as we explained last month.)

But by delaying expansion until the next contract cycle, the CFP could take all 11 games (over four rounds) to the open market and accept multiple bids, thereby driving up the price.

In addition, a postseason format that features several broadcast partners — for example: Fox and CBS and NBC — could spur each entity to pursue a deeper stake in the sport, as is the case in the NFL.

The Big Ten and Pac-12 will renegotiate their Tier 1 contracts in the next few years and would benefit from a landscape in which a slew of media companies are motivated to invest in regular-season broadcast packages.

The CFP is run by the Board of Managers, a group of 11 university presidents and chancellors representing each conference and Notre Dame.

According to Bill Hancock, the CFP’s executive director, expansion would require a unanimous vote.

“As with any contract,” he said, “amending the CFP agreement would require the consent of all parties.”

Which means one conference could delay expansion until 2026 — if it was willing to risk alienating the other 10.

But if, for example, three conferences voted as a bloc, the situation becomes far more palatable for everyone involved.

The CFP managers are expected to meet again in late September and discuss the details and timing of expansion.

The outcome of that meeting will help guide the Pac-12’s strategic decisions currently under examination by Hanks, the coaches and the athletic directors.

“By the end of the season, we’ll have a much better sense for what that (CFP) expansion looks like and what the timeline is,’’ Kliavkoff said.

“If you’re optimizing for CFP invitations, then knowing what it’s going to look like a few years down the line is really important.”

 

[RoyalBevo21 777]

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. 

[DFW Horn 6,127]

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. 

[Gidnik 3,284]

i mean, if thats the case, the buyout phase is going at warp speed. 

 

[Gaffords 757]

On 8/21/2021 at 9:24 PM, 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.

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

 

 

[utee94 15,835]

1 minute ago, 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

 

 

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.

 

[Treefidy 1,469]

1 hour ago, 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. 

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

[Lone Star Horn 2,018]

Ooh, the good pure blue stuff?

[Pimphand 5,776]

11 minutes ago, Treefidy said:

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

OU just needs to offer a Spencer Jones bar bathroom brawl training video.

[TrashMaster G 17,568]

2 hours ago, 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. 

The Belle's what of the ball?

[RoyalBevo21 777]

8 minutes ago, TrashMaster G said:

The Belle's what of the ball?

belle of the ball

 

phrase of belle

 

1. the most beautiful and popular girl or woman at a dance.

    

Definitions from Oxford Languages

 

[Pato del Muerto 52,529]

2 minutes ago, RoyalBevo21 said:

belle of the ball

 

phrase of belle

 

1. the most beautiful and popular girl or woman at a dance.

    

Definitions from Oxford Languages

 

It’s the fucking possessive apostrophe, shithead, not ignorance of the colloquialism. 

[TKthunder2 4,992]

1 hour ago, 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.

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.

[RoyalBevo21 777]

4 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

It’s the fucking possessive apostrophe, shithead, not ignorance of the colloquialism. 

[Hurtlocker 2,213]

 

 

[maninblack 7,974]

 

[HornsofBevo 122]

5 minutes ago, Hurtlocker 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. 

[Surly Bevo 25,062]

13 minutes ago, 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. 

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

[6th Street 6,428]

21 minutes ago, 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. 

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. 

[Hurtlocker 2,213]

8 minutes ago, 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. 

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.

[brakeman 28,378]

 

[BachelorTrek 3,050]

27 minutes ago, brakeman said:

 

Yeah, yeah. Now show the clip of the SEC as Omega Supreme kicking Devastator's ass.  Lulz.

[closetohumping 17,453]

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

[billfromlaketravis 11,519]

53 minutes ago, 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.

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 August 24, 2021 by billfromlaketravis

[TKthunder2 4,992]

33 minutes ago, 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. 

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,

[TKthunder2 4,992]

13 minutes ago, 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. 

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.

[Francisco 2.0 32,395]

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

 

 

Spoiler

The Big Ten, ACC and Pac-12 are expected to formally announce their alliance on Tuesday, multiple people with knowledge of the situation told The Athletic. The three leagues plan to work together on multiple fronts, from College Football Playoff expansion to NCAA governance issues and annual football scheduling.

Schools within the three conferences believe they are like-minded, that they want to continue to prioritize broad-based sports offerings and that the academic profile of their institutions matters — as does graduating athletes.

"You all know the importance to us and the Big Ten around the concept of like-minded institutions," Penn State athletic director Sandy Barbour said on Saturday.

"The Big Ten really prides itself on being more than just an athletics conference. ... If you look at that footprint of Pac 12, ACC and the Big Ten, I think the number is 40 percent of the AAU (Association of American Universities) membership lies in those three conferences."

What could this mean for scheduling games?

The scheduling piece will likely be the most complicated, considering how many programs are locked into future game contracts — and that the Big Ten and Pac-12 both currently require that members play nine conference games apiece. The appeal of cross-country (and cross-conference) scheduling is particularly enticing for the Pac-12, which would then be able to play games in the Central and Eastern time zones, more major markets and fertile recruiting regions.

One scheduling option could be that the Big Ten would drop from nine conference games to eight and each school would play one game with each of the Pac-12 and the ACC annually, sources say.

How pressing is College Football Playoff expansion and the ESPN deal?

Arguably, no issue facing these leagues right now is more pressing than CFP expansion. None of these three conferences had representation on the CFP's four-person working group that proposed the 12-team model to great fanfare back in June. Though the Playoff has insisted that the 12-team model is not set in stone, it is the only format that the working group proposed and is the bracket that stakeholders are seeking feedback on right now.

There is a strong feeling among administrators in the Big Ten, Pac-12 and the ACC that Playoff expansion — in whatever form it takes — should not take place until the end of the current contract with ESPN, in 2026. Expansion prior to 2026 would allow for ESPN to remain the exclusive rights-holder of the Playoff, and it would also mean that the new format (with its additional games and rounds) would not go to the open market.

One driving force behind the alliance, in general, is a concern that ESPN controls and dictates too much of the sport. Industry sources have pointed out that a multi-round event with multiple broadcast partners such as Fox, CBS and/or NBC would also incentivize those media companies to invest more in their coverage of and commitment to college football.

The CFP's Board of Managers is scheduled to meet in Chicago in late September to discuss the 12-team format and the potential timeline of implementation.

Is this a response to the SEC?

The commissioners of the Big Ten, ACC and Pac-12 are all relatively new to their jobs; Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff has been in his role for less than two months. The three have been in regular contact since news broke that Texas and Oklahoma were leaving the Big 12 for the SEC. All have felt pressure to respond with some sort of counterpunch to the SEC, which is consolidating further power with its new additions and a commissioner who carries great sway over college athletics.

 

 

[DFW Horn 6,127]

 

[billfromlaketravis 11,519]

7 hours ago, 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.

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. 

[Hurtlocker 2,213]

7 hours ago, 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.

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.

[DCLonghorn 244]

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!!!

[SydneyCarton 48,112]

 

9 hours ago, 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.

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. 

[TKthunder2 4,992]

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.

[SydneyCarton 48,112]

2 minutes ago, 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.

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?

[Hurtlocker 2,213]

6 minutes ago, 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. 

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.

[TKthunder2 4,992]

1 minute ago, 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?

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.

[SydneyCarton 48,112]

1 minute ago, 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.

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. 

[Wade 464]

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.

[nivek3 83]

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. 

[TKthunder2 4,992]

5 minutes ago, 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. 

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.

[thunderlounge 7,871]

9 hours ago, closetohumping said:

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

At Italian leather prices, too. 
 

 

1 hour ago, 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.

 

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

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3,868]

1 hour ago, 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.

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 August 24, 2021 by ShaggyBevo RIP

[utee94 15,835]

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.

 

 

 

[BurntOrange&White 39,934]

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?”

[Pato del Muerto 52,529]

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. 

[Stella Link 534]

33 minutes ago, 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?”

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.... 

 

 

[Gaffords 757]

10 hours ago, 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.

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.