Realignment talk not going away

[immamac 42,839]

This is the dumbest shit I've ever seen. How are all of these commissioners so fucking inept? 

[PatrickMcHorn 376]

17 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

That's basically it.   The Pac does want to drop to 8 games, but they can't and keep their contract intact.  If they had 4 games to give, you could give two of them to the B1G/ACC, that gives them more games in the east coast.  Granted that only gets you back to even, but you're back to even with more eyeballs.   I think you also set up made for TV ones in the beginning of the year and fill in those bullshit filler games everyone has with just normal cross overs.  Washington State v Syracuse isn't going to be a 4m game, but, to your point, its going to be worth a fuck ton more than Syracuse v Western Carolina or the Citadel, or the nameless rabble of bought games. 

While this helps the Pac/ACC, all I think it gives the B1G is puppet states, which may be what it wants most.

If the PAC drops to eight,  I'd think it's because they're intending to pick up games, not just replace what they have with home and homes via the alliance. 

They already do a lot of bigger home and home games.   They'll replace these with alliance games over time,  and also add SDSUs of the world for the extra game to sell. 

[Surly Bevo 24,908]

1 hour ago, Deej said:

Looking forward to Baylor's stadium looking like Mayan ruins within the next decade or two. 

Not likely, the Mayans knew how to build shit, Baylor knows how to build Mangino a shitter.

[Surly Bevo 24,908]

The Athletic was not impressed

Spoiler

GAINESVILLE, Fla. — Kevin Warren set a Big Ten record for being disingenuous. Jim Phillips could’ve been flagged 15 yards for unnecessary pretension. And George Kliavkoff, offering a revelation that was refreshingly honest and astonishingly devoid of fine print, said the “historic” alliance among the Big Ten, ACC and Pac-12 was secured not by contracts but rather an “agreement between three gentlemen.”

If that holds up, it truly will be historic.

Tuesday being National Waffle Day, it marked the ideal time to announce a no-poaching accord among three conferences that previously poached the hell out of their adjacents.

The chortles coming from inside SEC headquarters must’ve been hearty as the landmark announcement fizzled. So much feel-good bluster over a nonbinding deal to schedule a few nonconference games in an unspecified number of years from now? Greg Sankey just added Texas and Oklahoma to his inventory, and other commissioners are practicing trust falls.

Not that you’d expect a far-flung collection of 41 schools across four time zones to galvanize a meaningful response within 26 short days of the Longhorns and Sooners officially starting their transition. Still, as counterpunches go, this was less of a light tap and more like a complete whiff.

When a counterpunch misses, it’s natural to try a counter-narrative. Like the whopper Warren told Tuesday: “I wouldn’t say this is a reaction to Oklahoma and Texas joining the SEC.”

Riiiiiight. And Floridians boarding up windows isn’t a reaction to hurricanes. We just prefer our homes to feel more rustic.

Of course, this is a reaction. Otherwise, we’re left to believe that presidents on campuses scattered from Seattle to Miami, and Tucson to New Jersey, returned from their summer getaways with the same, sudden urge: to have their teams use more jet fuel.

The whole thing feels like a clumsy exercise in crisis management, though gaining buy-in from all those administrators, athletic directors and commissioners represents an achievement. No doubt Warren is relieved to experience any semblance of unity after the uproar from prematurely canceling the Big Ten’s 2020 football season.

His first 20 months as commissioner have offered a difficult indoctrination, one that turned thornier when Texas and Oklahoma, the two sterling prizes of realignment, went knocking on the SEC’s door.

“Hopefully, this will bring some much-needed stability in college athletics,” Warren said of the alliance, ignoring the fact that handshake deals don’t typically scream stability. Also ignoring the irrefutable fact that the Big Ten would’ve taken Texas and OU in a Minnesota minute had those schools looked northward instead.

And that brings us to the ACC’s new commissioner, who was asked by The Athletic’s Stewart Mandel how the shared values of the alliance differ from the SEC. Phillips kicked off his answer with: “Education, research, service …”

Maybe Phillips thought he was applying for tenure at his previous workplace, Northwestern. Or maybe he didn’t mind throwing shade at the Ph.D. he earned from the University of Tennessee. When he closed the answer by emphasizing  “It’s not a holier-than-thou statement,” that’s precisely what it was. These institutions should be proud of their academic heft, but the folks involved in athletics are trying to fill stadiums, win titles and raise funds. Considering that most SEC athletes were recruited by schools in the alliance, why insult their academic profiles with such undertones?

Three ACC schools play SEC rivals every year, and as far as I can discern, their GPA doesn’t dip because of it. Duke football has upcoming games against Middle Tennessee, Charlotte and Liberty. Are we going to assert that academics mattered one scintilla in those contracts, or will we save the high-minded talking points for realignment?

Another colleague of mine at The Athletic, Georgia writer Seth Emerson, wrote an entering column today. He asserts that college athletics is “a disorganized mess” (which it is), and that “nobody is in charge, so everybody acts in their own self-interest” (which they do). This mimics calls from across the land for a commissioner who would direct all of college football. But I’m not sure that model works. Have you checked the popularity of Roger Goodell and Rob Manfred?

What if someone like Warren had been CFB czar last fall? Would they have shut down a season that wound up being staged safely? Thank goodness the SEC and Big 12 had the autonomy to devise their own medical protocols and keep the athletes competing.

Seth also suggests Sankey should’ve put Texas and Oklahoma on hold while checking around the country in order to see if the Big 12 could be saved. While I’m a huge proponent of sustaining traditions and keeping the left-behind Big 12 programs viable, Texas and OU weren’t comfortable with projections of their network revenues falling further behind schools in the SEC and Big Ten. If Sankey hesitated to engage them, their next call would’ve gone to Warren and we would be witnessing months of horse-trading.

One final thought on the alliance. It is only a few hours old, meaning it could morph into something stronger (as in a signed document) or it might completely vanish. For now, it purports only to set up a few nonconference games. Some will be compelling; some won’t make a blip. It can’t produce Ohio State-USC or Penn State-Clemson every week.

With the Big Ten and Pac-12 already at nine conference games, and the ACC playing a soft nine with the Notre Dame factor, that leaves only three available dates per season. If FSU-Florida, Clemson-South Carolina, Georgia Tech-Georgia and Louisville-Kentucky persist (Lord help us if they don’t), those schools are down to two openings. Does the alliance fill Dabo Swinney’s schedule with a trip to Oregon and a home game against Michigan?

The alliance commissioners are saying future game contracts will be honored, meaning Ohio State’s home-and-homes with SEC schools Texas, Alabama and Georgia remain on the docket. A cluster of alliance teams — Utah, Cal, Arizona State, Colorado, Miami, Boston College and NC State — are on Florida’s schedule between 2022 and 2031. That further reduces those schools’ abilities to participate in the alliance mix.

And if the alliance takes scheduling precedence, what becomes of the Group of 5 guarantee games? The SEC, after expanding to a nine-game league schedule once Texas and OU arrive, would still have room for up to two games a year against the AAC, Mid-American, Sun Belt and Conference USA. There also could be attractive games against whatever becomes of the Big 12 left-behinds.

With the potential for SEC cash and exposure to filter to those overlooked teams, Sankey might be perceived as helping to save college football. Mid-majors could drive for a regional payday and elevate their profile by proxy, facing schools in the nation’s best college football league. All while continent-crossing teams in the historic alliance soar overhead, counting sky miles instead of championships.

 

[VABuckeye 2,472]

5 hours ago, n64ra said:

Yawn. If it's not Texas football this season or SEC football next (maybe 2025) season, who cares.

Have you watched TEXAS football over the last ten years?

[SuperSport 1,333]

48 minutes ago, immamac said:

This is the dumbest shit I've ever seen. How are all of these commissioners so fucking inept? 

MBAs.

[GTX Horn 1,708]

So basically the “alliance” is absolutely meaningless. Much ado about nothing. SEC should take the best of those 3 conferences and split off from the NCAA

[Mitch Cumsteen 18,547]

So just so I can get this straight... The big 10, who essentially started the demise of the big 12 by poaching Nebraska, and the Pac, who poached Colorado from the big 12, and the ACC who poached anything of value from the Big East are entering into a gentleman's "no poaching" agreement to stabilize college football because they are all shitting their pants over Texas and OU going SEC. Karma is certainly a bitch. 

[jinx 2,635]

11 minutes ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

So just so I can get this straight... The big 10, who essentially started the demise of the big 12 by poaching Nebraska, and the Pac, who poached Colorado from the big 12, and the ACC who poached anything of value from the Big East are entering into a gentleman's "no poaching" agreement to stabilize college football because they are all shitting their pants over Texas and OU going SEC. Karma is certainly a bitch. 

I was told that was all Texas fault

[Droopy 2,626]

5 minutes ago, jinx said:

I was told that was all Texas fault

It is. Moose out front should have told you that Texas is the giver and taker of life, the reason that the SWC, Big XII, Big 8, Big East, Biggie Smalls, Tupac, Cobain, and chivalry are all no longer with us. Rinse and repeat, same as it ever was. "Haven't you heard, Daddy's Bowlsby's gone crazy? Haven't you heard... Momma Texas is gone..." - George Strait

[Pato del Muerto 52,489]

49 minutes ago, GTX Horn said:

So basically the “alliance” is absolutely meaningless. Much ado about nothing. SEC should take the best of those 3 conferences and split off from the NCAA

It’s as powerful and binding as an alliance in survivor. 

[Born Burnt 6,177]

Remember that week when this thread was interesting?

[ChiTownDoc 21,151]

6 hours ago, Deej said:

Big12/SEC alliance with aggy playing Tech every year would be great.

If so we’d have to start an NIL for tech.  Just watching aggy meltdown as they lose year after year to tech would be completely worth it. 

I mean, apparently, I’m already sponsoring you assholes. 

[notre dame joe 187]

4 hours ago, Droopy said:

It is. Moose out front should have told you that Texas is the giver and taker of life, the reason that the SWC, Big XII, Big 8, Big East, Biggie Smalls, Tupac, Cobain, and chivalry are all no longer with us. Rinse and repeat, same as it ever was. "Haven't you heard, Daddy's Bowlsby's gone crazy? Haven't you heard... Momma Texas is gone..." - George Strait

You forgot John F Kennedy.

[Droopy 2,626]

3 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

You forgot John F Kennedy.

I have no doubt.
 

I’m sure the day your domino falls, Texas will some how be blamed for it finally happening. 

[BurntOrange&White 39,931]

13 hours ago, YouLoveMyPenises said:

The only competitive move is for the top of the Big 10, PAC, and ACC to merge into a new conference.

 

The Big 10 CiC isn't going anywhere, no need to play sports against each other to share research dollars.

 

A 16 team SEC and a 16 team Super Happy Alliance Friends conference would capture what, 75% of all CFB viewers? Around $75-90 million a year per school for rights?

 

The other option is letting the SEC slowly add all valuable properties and continue to skyrocket past everyone else in revenue.

That alliance is going to be fucked regardless just because ESPN owns the rights to the ACC Network....when push comes to shove money will be more important than that alliance....


BIG and Pac will be left to figure out what to do with Fox as their Tier 1 network.

[BurntOrange&White 39,931]

9 hours ago, GTX Horn said:

So basically the “alliance” is absolutely meaningless. Much ado about nothing. SEC should take the best of those 3 conferences and split off from the NCAA

Yup...poach the following:

 

Pac - USC, Oregon
BIG - Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State
ACC - Clemson, Florida State, Miami

 

Gets to 24 then split into two 12 team divisions East and West

[DFW Horn 6,123]

 

[DanTheHorn 4,922]

10 hours ago, GTX Horn said:

So basically the “alliance” is absolutely meaningless. Much ado about nothing. SEC should take the best of those 3 conferences and split off from the NCAA

[Zeus 6,018]

The "alliance" isn't about scheduling or whatever it's about coming together to pick through the scraps of the big12. They don't want the ACC to get Notre Dame AND Okie Lite AND WVU or whatever so they want to agree to all come together and let the big10 and pac12 survive the landscape change once the big 12 finally dies. 

[GTX Horn 1,708]

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Yup...poach the following:

 

Pac - USC, Oregon
BIG - Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State
ACC - Clemson, Florida State, Miami

 

Gets to 24 then split into two 12 team divisions East and West

In this hypothetical, if the league was gonna split off from the NCAA then I think you’d have to include Notre Dame as well.

 

I don’t get the benefit to the alliance trying to possibly slow play playoff expansion. Unless they try to revise the playoff to only be conference champs so the SEC can’t get 2 teams in, they’d be isolating one of the members of the alliance most years as the SEC could still get 2 teams into a 4 team playoff a lot of years. It seems like a 12-team model would be more beneficial to the alliance so they could all be assured of a playoff spot. The only benefit to slow playing the 12-team model is preventing the SEC from getting 3 or more in the playoffs but that’s a textbook example of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[LTbear 4,168]

6 minutes ago, GTX Horn said:

I don’t get the benefit to the alliance trying to possibly slow play playoff expansion. 

I assume it's so the playoff goes to open market rather than default being controlled by ESPN. Possibly more money, possibly less ESPN monopoly control on the biggest aspects of CFB.

[bullet 1,596]

11 hours ago, Surly Bevo said:

The Athletic was not impressed

  Hide contents

 

"...And that brings us to the ACC’s new commissioner, who was asked by The Athletic’s Stewart Mandel how the shared values of the alliance differ from the SEC. Phillips kicked off his answer with: “Education, research, service …”

Maybe Phillips thought he was applying for tenure at his previous workplace, Northwestern. Or maybe he didn’t mind throwing shade at the Ph.D. he earned from the University of Tennessee. When he closed the answer by emphasizing  “It’s not a holier-than-thou statement,” that’s precisely what it was. These institutions should be proud of their academic heft, but the folks involved in athletics are trying to fill stadiums, win titles and raise funds. Considering that most SEC athletes were recruited by schools in the alliance, why insult their academic profiles with such undertones?

Three ACC schools play SEC rivals every year, and as far as I can discern, their GPA doesn’t dip because of it. Duke football has upcoming games against Middle Tennessee, Charlotte and Liberty. Are we going to assert that academics mattered one scintilla in those contracts, or will we save the high-minded talking points for realignment?..."

 

 

On the point quote from that article is above.  There are only a dozen or so schools in the rebel paclantic alliance that are in the same category as Texas and Florida academically.

[mdmost 43,001]

11 minutes ago, Zeus said:

The "alliance" isn't about scheduling or whatever it's about coming together to pick through the scraps of the big12. They don't want the ACC to get Notre Dame AND Okie Lite AND WVU or whatever so they want to agree to all come together and let the big10 and pac12 survive the landscape change once the big 12 finally dies. 

I don't think any conference needs any Big 12 team now. With this "Alliance", the Pac 12 gets what it needs in Central and East coast TV exposure without having to permanently tie itself to Lubbock, Stillwater, Waco, and Lawrence. The ACC gets what it wants in Notre Dame now having even more protected rivalry games with the scheduling alliance (Stanford, USC, Michigan, Michigan State) while allowing Notre Dame to maintain their independence. Fox gets more Notre Dame games when they travel to Big 10 or Pac 12 locations. The Big 10 really doesn't have to do anything but they'll definitely take 2 other conferences that will vote like they do. The Big 10 already has a lot of dead weight they had to take in order to secure a better TV deal (Maryland, Rutgers). They're not going to worry about any Big 12 schools short of taking Kansas for basketball inventory. The ACC has their shiny new TV deal that ESPN overpaid for. They don't have to add anyone either now. And Fox got what it wanted in 3 conferences that will push to let the playoff go out to the market. 

[bullet 1,596]

9 minutes ago, LTbear said:

I assume it's so the playoff goes to open market rather than default being controlled by ESPN. Possibly more money, possibly less ESPN monopoly control on the biggest aspects of CFB.

So they are all mad at ESPN because the SEC got Texas and OU instead of them.

Pac could have had us in 1990.  Probably could have in 1994 if they would have taken Tech.  Almost had us in 2010.  Big 10 wouldn't talk to us in 1990.  Wouldn't talk about our "Tech problem" in 1994 and 2010.

If they give up 3 years of revenue in order to take it to open market, they probably never make it pay off.  Its like Nebraska.  If they had stayed in the Big 12 until now, they would be close to $100 million ahead.

[Treefidy 1,463]

10 hours ago, jinx said:

I was told that was all Texas fault

ME:  Cmon Texas, you cant kill conferences.

TEXAS:  Okay….. so I can kill THAT conference?

ME:  No Texas, you CANT kill conferences!

TEXAS:  Okay, say I’m in a hotel room, and the conference just wants to touch me….  I can kill that one?

[mdmost 43,001]

Such great leadership.

 

[Lidig8r 1,871]

Bob BowlsBuhBye, Big 12 Commish:

 

[Pato del Muerto 52,489]

2 hours ago, Droopy said:

I have no doubt.
 

I’m sure the day your domino falls, Texas will some how be blamed for it finally happening. 

This was inevitable once Texas…

…moved to the sec?

…drove big12 partners away?

…forced the big 8 merger?

…other?

[6th Street 6,392]

18 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Such great leadership.

 

Does Bowlsby do anything except sit at his desk and eat paste?

[utee94 15,811]

We're joking about it but on another message board I frequent, there are actually Big Ten fans, that think Texas and the SEC are doing dirty deeds here, and are ruining college football.  They don't get it-- at all-- that it's THEIR conference that started all of this, both in 1991 when it added PSU, and in 2010 when they began raiding the B12 and ACC.

If I were an ACC fan or administrator, I'd have ZERO trust in the B1G.  This is all their fault.

 

 

[DCLonghorn 244]

We're joking about it but on another message board I frequent, there are actually Big Ten fans, that think Texas and the SEC are doing dirty deeds here, and are ruining college football.  They don't get it-- at all-- that it's THEIR conference that started all of this, both in 1991 when it added PSU, and in 2010 when they began raiding the B12 and ACC.
If I were an ACC fan or administrator, I'd have ZERO trust in the B1G.  This is all their fault.
 
 

I love this...as it comports with my preferred world view. However, an argument can be made, by other aholes, that the SEC started it in 1990 when they poached Arky.

It sort of came into conspiratorial focus for me when I realized that the SEC now has Arky, aggy, and Texas. Long game to take the best of and destroy the rest of the SWC. All other members of the SWC from the 80s are or may likely be power conference homeless (if Wannstedt's spew has any truths).

[DFW Horn 6,123]

27 minutes ago, utee94 said:

If I were an ACC fan or administrator, I'd have ZERO trust in the B1G.  This is all their fault.

The ACC decimated the Big East by adding BC, Syracuse, Pitt, and Miami. Plus, they're in bed with ESPN for their ACC Network. How are they more credible or trustworthy?

This is a big game of Liars Poker.

Edited August 25, 2021 by DFW Horn

[SimonBolivar 10,958]

31 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Does Bowlsby do anything except sit at his desk and eat paste?

I'm sure he spends a lot of time trying to come up with ways to spend his $3M/yr salary.

[billfromlaketravis 11,456]

Just now, SimonBolivar said:

I'm sure he spends a lot of time trying to come up with ways to spend his $3M/yr salary.

I'm mildly surprised we haven't heard a peep about Bowlsby requesting a buy out. His attorney should be pursuing all options. 

[Steamboat1874 4,056]

I doubt any of the big boys in the B10 will leave for anything.

I think the B10 would be more likely to add teams. 

[Scholz 11,941]

19 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

I'm sure he spends a lot of time trying to come up with ways to spend his $3M/yr salary.

[Laxtonto 12,080]

This is just another reason why this alliance thing being so public is stupid...

 

[DFW Horn 6,123]

Just now, Laxtonto said:

This is just another reason why this alliance thing being so public is stupid...

 

No doubt. These idiots should've kept everything on the down low.

[Laxtonto 12,080]

Fuck you Houston... I would love to see their hubris be just one more straw that helps destroy the B12.

If UH is a hard "No" then the number of schools that exist that would keep the B12 solvent for the networks is just that much smaller and the idea of holding out for the big mythical payday becomes that much harder for some schools. Even if they are not an automatic "No", now we now can confirm that there is enough division among the ranks that there is no clean add that will make everyone happy.

[billfromlaketravis 11,456]

15 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

Fuck you Houston... I would love to see their hubris be just one more straw that helps destroy the B12.

If UH is a hard "No" then the number of schools that exist that would keep the B12 solvent for the networks is just that much smaller and the idea of holding out for the big mythical payday becomes that much harder for some schools. Even if they are not an automatic "No", now we now can confirm that there is enough division among the ranks that there is no clean add that will make everyone happy.

Does anybody have the article? 

[Laxtonto 12,080]

1 minute ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Does anybody have the article? 

Quote

Now that the alliance between the ACC, Big Ten and Pac-12 is formally underway, it’s time once again to ask: What will the Big 12 do next?

Sources in the conference continue to believe there’s a road to long-term survival for the Big 12. There are obstacles littered along the way, but the larger challenge going forward hasn’t changed much. It’s still a matter of getting all eight remaining members on the same page and arriving at the same conclusion about their future.

Thanks to the three-conference alliance, it’s becoming more likely those eight Big 12 members are going to be stuck together for now. The pact doesn’t preclude those leagues from eventually deciding to add new members. But the main threat right now to the Big 12 is the Pac-12. By the end of this week, we’ll know whether it wishes to pursue expansion.

While Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff has floated that possibility publicly, he also acknowledged on Tuesday that the formation of the alliance achieves “a lot of what we wanted” when his conference first began looking at expansion. He also preached the importance of bringing stability to the college athletics landscape. Raiding the Big 12 doesn’t accomplish that.

“We want and need the Big 12 to do well,” ACC commissioner Jim Phillips said. “The Big 12 matters in college athletics. The Big 12 matters in Power 5 athletics.”

Still, even the slightest possibility of the Pac-12 adding two or four schools gives hope to the members of the Big 12 that have been trying to explore potential exit strategies. It’s a door that hasn’t yet been slammed shut. They know if no other conferences expand, they don’t have other options. If the Pac-12 stays put — and the SEC stays away — then the remaining eight can either keep stalling or get serious about what it will take to establish a satisfactory future in the Big 12.

Getting cut out of the alliance was another tough break for the Big 12, making the conference again appear to be a step behind. Big 12 leaders emerged from their first meeting regarding the Texas-Oklahoma rumors telling themselves the SEC exit wasn’t very far along. Within seven days, the Longhorns and Sooners had their SEC invites. Some spent the past week privately downplaying the importance and imminence of the alliance. They could be right that the “historic” partnership is overhyped, but it’s now official. The timeline on these matters keeps moving faster than anticipated.

All this has left the Big 12 in an existential limbo that most agree is uncomfortable and disappointing. Here’s what we’re hearing about where things stand in the conference and the possibilities ahead.

Exploring expansion

Yes, Big 12 expansion has been a subject of internal conversation over the past month. The conference has already formed an expansion subgroup to lead the way, but that process is still in the preliminary stages. They recognize they must start figuring out who fits best if that’s the move to make.

But there are several important dynamics at play here. A standard one is whether commissioner Bob Bowlsby and his Big 12 presidents and athletic directors will get aligned on the topic and targets. A more subtle one is how many of those leaders will be reluctant to fully embrace the process because some might still prefer to keep their own options open over the next few years.

If their desired outcome is finding a home in another Power 5 league — however unlikely that might look today — then why go all-in on expansion, especially if it means binding yourself to the Big 12 beyond 2025? There’s no purpose in expanding if enough of the remaining eight aren’t looking to commit long-term right now.

There’s also the still-valid viewpoint from the Big 12’s look into expansion in 2016: Why slice the pie more ways? If, as many assume, the Big 12 is having to settle for much less money on its next TV deal and adds more members, these eight would make even less on a per-school basis from the annual revenue distribution. That makes it tough to sell everyone on going to 10, 12 or even 14 members. Bowlsby can offer years of smaller payouts to new members as a condition of joining, but the financial stress remains for these eight: They need moves that make them whole.

Sources say the Big 12 would also need a supermajority vote of eight out of 10 members in order to make these decisions. Texas and Oklahoma retain their voting privileges for as long as they’re in the conference. So what will it take to get all eight remaining schools moving in lockstep?

In the weeks since the news of Texas and Oklahoma leaving for the SEC broke, a source said at least 15 schools contacted the Big 12 to express interest in joining, most of them coming from the American Athletic Conference and Mountain West. Even as the allegation of the AAC plotting to poach Big 12 members at ESPN’s direction was surfacing, there was still confidence internally the Big 12 would be the conference that’s importing and not exporting. Leaders and supporters at those schools are working hard to lobby for their inclusion. They want to be in a Power 5 conference.

One sentiment among multiple sources is that the Big 12’s best approach to expansion, if it does stay together, is focusing on building the strongest football conference it possibly can. BYU, Cincinnati, UCF and Boise State would be logical targets if that’s the plan, and several more schools merit consideration. There still seems to be serious reluctance about engaging with Houston, which dates back to the conference’s unpleasant experience with UH board chairman Tilman Fertitta in 2016.

Staying successful in men’s basketball is still viewed as important, too. Again, it goes back to financial needs. The Big 12 won’t add just because it can. Inviting members needs to serve the bottom line: the next TV deal, their Power 5/Autonomy 5 status and their share of CFP and bowl revenue and basketball tournament units.

If the Big 12 does get moving on expansion, it should be a more deliberate process than in 2016. During that three-month exploration, Bowlsby and the conference sought applications, considered 18 schools and conducted a round of in-person interviews. At the time, Big 12 presidents were sensitive to the appearance of poaching other leagues.

Another reason expansion can play out differently this time? Texas and Oklahoma wouldn’t get to dictate the outcome.

The Texas and Oklahoma problem

There’s one giant, inconvenient domino in the Big 12’s situation that gives decision-makers pause about how they’re supposed to proceed. Nobody can say with certainty when it will fall.

Texas and Oklahoma continue to claim they’re content to stay in the Big 12 until the summer of 2025. The SEC says it has no problem with that plan. Few people in the Big 12 believe that’s genuine. But the defecting members have not given notice that they’re leaving early.

The Big 12’s bylaws require a departing member to give 18 months’ notice in addition to the hefty buyout fee that’s expected to be nearly $80 million. The leadership at Texas and Oklahoma would need to give notice by the end of December if their actual wish is to join the SEC on July 1, 2023. They can also wait it out and hope the Big 12 implodes before 2025, making exit fees unenforceable.

On the other side of this impasse are Bowlsby, his board and his ADs. They’re still incredibly angry at Texas and Oklahoma. They’re not looking to compromise for less than what they’re owed. And if that means the now-hated powers stay four more years, so be it.

“I think it’ll be really hard for them to leave before 2025,” one AD said, “after (Texas president) Jay Hartzell kept repetitively talking about how thoughtful he was to us all because he’s giving us four years.”

But setting that pettiness aside, not knowing when Texas and Oklahoma are out does create uncertainty about their own next steps. Can the remaining Big 12 be proactive on expansion? Or must they wait until after those two are gone?

“That’s a question we have to continue to try to wrap our minds around,” a second AD said. “There’s not an answer to it yet. It’s the right question to ask. I’m not sure any of the eight ADs or presidents could tell you the answer to it right now.”

Then there’s the other timetable of when new members would be allowed to join the Big 12. The AAC, for example, required 27 months’ notice and a $10 million fee when UConn chose to exit for the Big East in 2019. Within a month, UConn was able to negotiate that down to 12 months in exchange for giving up $17 million. If some of the AAC’s most valuable members attempt to leave, don’t expect that same courtesy.

For those in the Big 12 who aren’t yet sold on the value add of expansion, Texas and Oklahoma not departing until 2025 gives them cover to say there’s still a long runway and no need to rush into anything. The members who want to keep their options open can argue a lot can change over the next few years.

“Our boards are asking for answers and we don’t have answers right now,” a third AD said. “We may not have answers six months from now. And it could be, a year from now, we still don’t have answers. Let’s not panic and just start adding schools to add schools. I think that will end up harming us in the long run.”

If Texas and Oklahoma do decide on an early withdrawal, the massive sums they’d fork over could help fund the distribution of incoming members. But even that is not the easiest sell to the presidents and ADs who are rightfully concerned about the dramatic, painful budget cuts they’d be facing in a few years in a less-valuable Big 12.

For these reasons, perhaps things could begin to quiet down a bit in the Big 12 in the months ahead. The semester and fall sports are underway. Pandemic-related issues are back on the agenda. If the Pac-12 and other conferences stand pat and Texas and Oklahoma stay silent about their actual intentions, what else can the remaining eight do right now?

They’ll all have to get more comfortable with being uncomfortable.

Bowlsby’s support

Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren had lots of nice things to say about Bowlsby on Tuesday, calling him a “great leader” with an “incredible, successful history” for whom he has the “utmost respect.” Phillips added, in a later conversation with The Athletic, that the three commissioners feel strongly about doing “whatever we can to try to help” during this turbulent period.

But help isn’t coming in the form of a partnership in their alliance. Phillips said there’s just too much uncertainty with the state of the Big 12 right now.

In fairness, why would they do a deal with this Big 12? The leaders of the ACC, Big Ten and Pac-12 have surely received countless calls from reps of the eight remaining schools inquiring about membership over the past month, making it easy for them to question the league’s future stability. A 41-school agreement is enough in their eyes to influence and achieve change.

They had to know, though, that the decision to exclude the Big 12 — after Bowlsby had just met with Kliavkoff to discuss a strategic partnership — would make their fellow commissioner’s job tougher.

“I’m confident that under Bob’s leadership, he will do what’s best for his conference,” Warren said.

The difficult question now, within the Big 12, is how much confidence still exists that Bowlsby can get this fixed. There are, unsurprisingly, conflicting viewpoints on this. Sources say several Big 12 presidents are frustrated and anxious, while others believe key supporters haven’t lost faith in Bowlsby and that putting all the blame on him for the Big 12’s current state is unfair.

“He’s been in this business for nearly 45 years and has always been a very honest, up-front businessperson,” one AD said in his defense. “And now he’s gotten stabbed in the back twice in the last month by people that were supposed to be his friends.”

The Texas-Oklahoma exit plan and the formation of the alliance both caught the Big 12 by surprise, so those setbacks evoking some discontent and finger-pointing is to be expected. But going forward, Bowlsby must continue to convince his presidents and ADs in a compelling way that he’s the right person to put together a new Big 12.

The current chairman of the Big 12’s board of directors is Texas Tech president Lawrence Schovanec. Even if he were to decide he wanted Bowlsby out, some question whether Schovanec could rally enough support from his peers. If it someday comes to that, Bowlsby would need respected, level-headed allies in the room to keep backing him.

What’s also unclear is whether such a change is even feasible. In 2017, the board extended Bowlsby’s contract through June 2025. It was a logical move to keep the commissioner in charge through the end of the league’s grant of rights. The terms of the deal were not released. One source suggests his buyout is considered prohibitively expensive. USA Today reported last summer, citing tax returns, that Bowlsby made just over $4 million for 2019-20. He reportedly took a 20 percent salary reduction last year during the pandemic.

There are also legitimate concerns about the optics. If Big 12 decision-makers pushed the 69-year-old Bowlsby out after nine-plus years on the job, out of a sense that a more exciting commissioner is needed to navigate these scary times, they’d just be creating more chaos. Bowlsby stepping down would arguably make the conference look even more out-of-control at a time when many members are still trying to appear as desirable as possible.

One source said they’d be “absolutely shocked” if Bowlsby isn’t given the time needed to guide the Big 12 through this and warned that, if he’s ousted, “the next two to three years would just be crazy.”

All of this underscores how vitally important the Big 12’s next steps will be. If other conferences aren’t expanding, few alternatives remain. The remaining members would need to work together. Bowlsby needs to build consensus. And they’ll all need to find a way – despite all the uncertain factors, competing interests and obvious tensions – to make this work.

 

[Sbbruin 21,841]

2 hours ago, mdmost said:

I don't think any conference needs any Big 12 team now. With this "Alliance", the Pac 12 gets what it needs in Central and East coast TV exposure without having to permanently tie itself to Lubbock, Stillwater, Waco, and Lawrence. The ACC gets what it wants in Notre Dame now having even more protected rivalry games with the scheduling alliance (Stanford, USC, Michigan, Michigan State) while allowing Notre Dame to maintain their independence. Fox gets more Notre Dame games when they travel to Big 10 or Pac 12 locations. The Big 10 really doesn't have to do anything but they'll definitely take 2 other conferences that will vote like they do. The Big 10 already has a lot of dead weight they had to take in order to secure a better TV deal (Maryland, Rutgers). They're not going to worry about any Big 12 schools short of taking Kansas for basketball inventory. The ACC has their shiny new TV deal that ESPN overpaid for. They don't have to add anyone either now. And Fox got what it wanted in 3 conferences that will push to let the playoff go out to the market. 

This is about right.  The alliance is nothing more than locking arms nd letting the SEC know that if the 3 conferences band together in a voting block, the SEC is not going to be able to dictate the direction of college football all on its own.  The reason they don't have anything in writing at this point is a) things are still being developed, b) it is going to be a loose alliance anyway, and c) putting it in writing could expose the conferences to a collusion claim.  

The Big 12, as many have stated, really offers very little to any of them.  They will backfill the void left by Texas and OU with a few G5 schools, and the question is whether they will get recognized as a Power 5 or not.  I suppose with playoff expansion, it may not matter beyond semantics.

[billfromlaketravis 11,456]

21 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

 

So what's UT's plan? If there's no lawsuit, there's no settlement/early exit. 

Waiting for the Big 12 to implode hasn't worked thus far. 

Edited August 25, 2021 by billfromlaketravis

[utee94 15,811]

1 hour ago, DCLonghorn said:

I love this...as it comports with my preferred world view. However, an argument can be made, by other aholes, that the SEC started it in 1990 when they poached Arky.

The B1G was already talking about expansion in 1990, and everyone knew it. Texas was among the teams that were considered.  So at the very least, it was happening simultaneously.  It wasn't the SEC instigating the arms race.

1 hour ago, DCLonghorn said:

It sort of came into conspiratorial focus for me when I realized that the SEC now has Arky, aggy, and Texas. Long game to take the best of and destroy the rest of the SWC. All other members of the SWC from the 80s are or may likely be power conference homeless (if Wannstedt's spew has any truths).

Texas was close enough to going to the SEC alongside the pigs, that Frank Broyles expected it to happen, and was quite surprised when it didn't.  Texas politics had gotten in the way at that time, shocking I know.  So I don't see it as any long game, Texas has always held the SEC as a possibility.  Finally, the timing worked out.

But of course everyone else in the country is allowed to make a move that's in their best interest (and detrimental to others) with nary a word being spoken about it.  But when evil ol' Texas does it, LOOK OUT!

 

 

[Droopy 2,626]

1 hour ago, DFW Horn said:

The ACC decimated the Big East by adding BC, Syracuse, Pitt, and Miami. Plus, they're in bed with ESPN for their ACC Network. How are they more credible or trustworthy?

This is a big game of Liars Poker.

Correct.

1 hour ago, SimonBolivar said:

I'm sure he spends a lot of time trying to come up with ways to spend his $3M/yr salary.

Bowlsby is just a complete imbecile for not having any clue this was/is/will happen. I guess you probably don't really care about your job when you pull that much cash. Lazy bitch.

1 minute ago, utee94 said:

The B1G was already talking about expansion in 1990, and everyone knew it. Texas was among the teams that were considered.  So at the very least, it was happening simultaneously.  It wasn't the SEC instigating the arms race.

Texas was close enough to going to the SEC alongside the pigs, that Frank Broyles expected it to happen, and was quite surprised when it didn't.  Texas politics had gotten in the way at that time, shocking I know.  So I don't see it as any long game, Texas has always held the SEC as a possibility.  Finally, the timing worked out.

But of course everyone else in the country is allowed to make a move that's in their best interest (and detrimental to others) with nary a word being spoken about it.  But when evil ol' Texas does it, LOOK OUT!

 

 

Correct. This is just a large scale coaching change and nothing more. Hot coach gets offer from larger school and moves. The dominoes fall behind them as every other coach jockey's for position and the potential pay raise as a result. Not sure how, but the narrative is that Texas is the big bad evil empire. Well, fine. Darth Vader and the Stormtroopers are the draw anyway. Suck on our Schwartz, CFB! 

On a side note, I'm still pulling for Ok St, ISU, and Tech to land some place nice, but the rest can EABOD and DIAF.

[Dewey 3,286]

1 hour ago, Laxtonto said:

This is just another reason why this alliance thing being so public is stupid...

 

The "alliance" might not make it to the first kickoff of the season. 

[utee94 15,811]

1 hour ago, DFW Horn said:

The ACC decimated the Big East by adding BC, Syracuse, Pitt, and Miami. Plus, they're in bed with ESPN for their ACC Network. How are they more credible or trustworthy?

This is a big game of Liars Poker.

Well that's true enough.

And the PAC was set up to poach over half the remaining B12 in 2010.  There are no good actors, no trustworthy allies, among those three conferences.

 

 

[Sbbruin 21,841]

37 minutes ago, Dewey said:

The "alliance" might not make it to the first kickoff of the season. 

That's why nothing was put in writing.  The conferences have "done" anything yet besides a presser.  I suspect the 3 conferences have their "top men" on it.

[Texas Wahoo 3,391]

3 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

That's why nothing was put in writing.  The conferences have "done" anything yet besides a presser.  I suspect the 3 conferences have their "top men" on it.

I get that they didn't sign anything, but it's not like they didn't put anything in writing.

 

https://bigten.org/news/2021/8/24/general-acc-big-ten-and-pac-12-announce-historic-alliance.aspx