My point is that it is not the Earth shattering "Champions Bowl" that it was originally touted to be.

With the collapse of the Big Ten/PAC 12 scheduling agreement, the dream of some of a "Big 4" of 16 school conferences seems further away, not closer to fruition.

Not surprising. USC finally pushed back with an assist from Stanford. 9 game conference schedule is so everyone else can get their trip to southern California for recruiting. USC already plays ND yearly, which is a long tradition and only Michigan and OSU would come close in interest out of the 12 Big Ten teams. So, now USC has 11 of their 12 games scheduled for them yearly. That's a bit too far.

USC doesn't rule their conference with an iron fist like Texas or UNC does, but they've got the clout that Michigan/OSU/Florida/Alabama have in theirs and probably finally said. "No, we're done sacrificing for the rest of you on this. We like being able to schedule a couple games how we want."

I agree with terry, it was a headscratcher from the start imo that caused alot of overreaction.

I can't blame USC on this one, and it's definitely a good example of how many micro-decisions go into the structure of schedules and conferences. As bronconick points out, there's pressure on USC from the Pac 12 to allow for access to southern California for recruiting purposes - so the needs of the likes of Washington State and Oregon State have an impact on USC's schedule. The USC/ND game is not only lucrative for USC, but I'd argue that it's one of those games that is actually good for college football as a whole, particularly in a time when so many traditional rivalries are fading away. So before you even entertain the concept of playing a B1G team, you have 10 games scheduled for you, and then once that happens you only have one. I think it's perfectly reasonable for USC to have a greater amount of control over their schedule (even taking into account that they do indeed have a choice in the USC/ND matchup - but it wouldn't be rational to give that up, so I don't really consider it to be a choice with a reasonable alternative).

So just take that to another level, and extend it beyond the implications for a single year's schedule. It's no wonder that it's difficult for much additional realignment chance to occur, because many different sets of interests start to collide.

I don't think this had anything to do with Notre Dame except in the minds of anti-Notre Dame fans. The Big Ten schools weren't going to stop playing the Irish and the time they were playing them was unlikely to be difficult for Notre Dame anyway. Meanwhile the PAC-12 specifically put rules in to allow Notre Dame to finish the year at USC/Stanford every year. There was no risk of anything beyond maybe one Big Ten game a year going away (possibly there'd be a few more breaks to allow other opponents, but I don't think Notre Dame would have even minded that).

(07-13-2012 02:49 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  I can't blame USC on this one, and it's definitely a good example of how many micro-decisions go into the structure of schedules and conferences. As bronconick points out, there's pressure on USC from the Pac 12 to allow for access to southern California for recruiting purposes - so the needs of the likes of Washington State and Oregon State have an impact on USC's schedule. The USC/ND game is not only lucrative for USC, but I'd argue that it's one of those games that is actually good for college football as a whole, particularly in a time when so many traditional rivalries are fading away. So before you even entertain the concept of playing a B1G team, you have 10 games scheduled for you, and then once that happens you only have one. I think it's perfectly reasonable for USC to have a greater amount of control over their schedule (even taking into account that they do indeed have a choice in the USC/ND matchup - but it wouldn't be rational to give that up, so I don't really consider it to be a choice with a reasonable alternative).

So just take that to another level, and extend it beyond the implications for a single year's schedule. It's no wonder that it's difficult for much additional realignment chance to occur, because many different sets of interests start to collide.

Everyone assumes that USC is one of the four schools that were opposed to the B1G scheduling alliance and that very well may be the case. However, it is ironic that for the last six years USC has played a team currently in the B1G (Ohio State, Minnesota and Nebraska each twice) while also playing ND and a 9-game schedule. The B1G scheduling agreement would not have affected USC's schedule as they regularly play one of the toughest, if not the toughest, schedules in the country. My speculation is that it may be possible that teams like UCLA, Oregon, Stanford and Washington (and not USC) were the ones leading the charge to nix the agreement.

USC likes having their choice of a national schedule rather than being told they have to play a Big Ten school every year.

They're vs Syracuse in New Jersey this season, BC next season at home then @ BC in 2014, followed by home and homes with A&M and Texas from 2015-2018.

They would have had to buy out the Texas series for the first two years of the Big Ten-PAC-12 deal or play 12 BCS schools for their schedule. I don't think either was acceptable.

Hopefully this puts the Utah/BYU series back in play. The crying that has come from BYU fans when Utah dropped them for a home/away series with Michigan has been utterly unbearable. Can't stand to hear about it on local sports radio any longer....I'm actually listening that *ssclown Jim Rome again!

My speculation is that the so-called power conferences are waking up to the fact that loading up on OOC games against each other means there will be a lot more early season losses by power conference teams. That's not the best way to preserve their status as power conferences or their advantage in qualifying for the national championship tournament. It makes more sense to schedule mid-major OOC opponents they have a better chance of beating (assuming the selection committee's scrutiny of SOS prevents them from relying on the old tried-and-true practice of playing most of their OOC games against cupcakes at home).

If so, it will be good news for up-and-coming mid-major programs, which will have more opportunities to show what they can do against elite competition and raise their stock value in the realignment market.

(07-13-2012 04:30 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  If so, it will be good news for up-and-coming mid-major programs, which will have more opportunities to show what they can do against elite competition and raise their stock value in the realignment market.

There will be opportunities for programs outside the top 5 conferences to knock off one of the big boys, but only for teams that are still under the radar and haven't yet made a splash. Any team that has already proven itself to be very dangerous isn't going to get chances against a Big 5 team with playoff aspirations. The best opportunities will be against the 7-to-9 win teams in the top leagues, who are going to lose 3 or 4 conference games anyway and thus have no reason to avoid Boise State.

Also, I wouldn't buy too much stock in the realignment market going forward. Realistically the only potential near-term openings in a top 5 conference are in the Big 12. There won't be more chairs than two unless one of the Big 5 leagues are blown up.

(07-13-2012 11:34 AM)TerryD Wrote:  My belief is that in 15 years or so, the move will be towards more schools like Texas going independent and the breakup of current conferences into new "power" conferences without "dead weight" schools and the formation of some smaller, regional conferences.

I disagree with part of this. Texas has the same problem Notre Dame does; both schools highly value their non-football sports (hell, Texas has an athletic director for women's sports). Unlike Notre Dame, Texas has not yet been able to convince a bunch of schools that it should be independent in football while receiving all the benefits and money from a solid, stable Olympic sports schedule. For that reason I don't think Texas will ever go independent.

I do agree that some of the bigger leagues are going to break up at some point, though. Fourteen teams is just too awkward for a conference.

Ok, seriously....the scheduling alliance was all meant to pressure Notre Dame?

Ok Terry, I like you but you have gone way too far with your Irish Ego on this one.

Look, you guys are a big deal and important but the scheduling alliance WAS NOT ABOUT NOTRE DAME!

So get that through that skull of yours. It was a positive idea for the PAC and B1G. It is unfortuate that the differing circumstances between the two conferences brought the idea to a halt. The fact that the PAC wants to stick to a 9 game season is more of an issue to this than Notre Dame is.

But whatever, if you Irish want to tout yourself as the main reason go for it. I think that is rather silly though.

And to talk badly about Delaney as a weakened commissioner? Sorry but what he does for the Big Ten is huge, no commissioner has done a better job with what they have available to them.

The Big Ten hate is amusing.

Big question is does the ACC jump quick at the Big Ten?

(07-13-2012 05:53 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The fact that the PAC wants to stick to a 9 game season is more of an issue to this than Notre Dame is.

Really, the 9-game Pac conference schedule is the only issue. It's like a chain of dominoes:

Scott & Co. split the California schools between the two divisions with the thought that it would generate more media interest in the north division if two California schools were in each division...

and that resulted in the California schools insisting that all of the in-state rivalries continue to be played every year...

which means the other four teams in the north division rotate into games against the LA teams less often...

which means the northwest schools insist on 9 conference games to get as many games against the LA teams as possible...

which means that USC and others balk at adding an annual Big Ten game to a 9-conference game schedule. Everyone would be ok with an annual Big Ten game on top of an 8-game Pac-12 schedule, but that's not happening for the reasons mentioned above.

(07-13-2012 11:01 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Will look for more links but here's a tweet to start:
BryanDFischer Whoa, the Big Ten and Pac-12 announce they're suspending plans for their scheduling collaboration.

Makes sense. With playoffs and the fact that pac-12 plays 9 conference games. Not enough flexibility for some schools.

(07-13-2012 11:51 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

Quote:The Pac-12 proposes having an agreement involving only its eight willing participants

So who are the four Pac schools against playing a Big Ten team every year?

Oregon -- because they don't want schedules too tough to contend for the 4-team playoff, and they oppose going back to an 8-game conference schedule.

USC -- they also don't want schedules too tough, and they play ND every year already.

Stanford -- they also play ND (almost) every year already.

Not sure who the 4th would be. Might be one of the northwest schools (because they also strongly favor the 9-game conference schedule and don't want pressure to go back to 8), or it might be a program that is trying to get back to respectability and doesn't want to overload their future schedules (could be any of a number of teams, but if it is someone in this category, my guess would be Colorado).

It is Washington I'm guessing. Washington does a A-B-C style non-conference schedule. They want to continue to play the top teams in the country for the 'A'. By adding a tough B1G school, you essentially have a difficult Non-conf schedule every year.

Not that it matters..Washington has Wisconsin in 2017 and 2018. But I think they like the idea of rotating big time schools. I wouldn't mind a home and home series with Florida State or Georgia

I will stick with my comments, thanks.

And, Delany is 0-2 this summer.

I don't hate the Big 10. I am pretty indifferent to it.

I was just sort of amused by the by "sports journalists" of Delany as "the smartest man in sports" and the man who had allegedly "checkmated" ND in 2010.

(07-13-2012 07:50 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Delany is 0-2 this summer.

??

Quote:I was just sort of amused by the by "sports journalists" of Delany as "the smartest man in sports" and the man who had allegedly "checkmated" ND in 2010.

Many people known as "sports journalists", of course, are people uninformed about sports and untalented at writing. Delany has largely succeeded, IMHO, in pursuing his agendas. There is still a lot left to do from his standpoint, but his league is obviously in a much stronger position than it was when he became commissioner in 1989. Which is more than can be said for Notre Dame.

(07-13-2012 07:42 PM)superdeluxe Wrote:  

(07-13-2012 11:51 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

Quote:The Pac-12 proposes having an agreement involving only its eight willing participants

So who are the four Pac schools against playing a Big Ten team every year?

Oregon -- because they don't want schedules too tough to contend for the 4-team playoff, and they oppose going back to an 8-game conference schedule.

USC -- they also don't want schedules too tough, and they play ND every year already.

Stanford -- they also play ND (almost) every year already.

Not sure who the 4th would be. Might be one of the northwest schools (because they also strongly favor the 9-game conference schedule and don't want pressure to go back to 8), or it might be a program that is trying to get back to respectability and doesn't want to overload their future schedules (could be any of a number of teams, but if it is someone in this category, my guess would be Colorado).

It is Washington I'm guessing. Washington does a A-B-C style non-conference schedule. They want to continue to play the top teams in the country for the 'A'. By adding a tough B1G school, you essentially have a difficult Non-conf schedule every year.

Not that it matters..Washington has Wisconsin in 2017 and 2018. But I think they like the idea of rotating big time schools. I wouldn't mind a home and home series with Florida State or Georgia

My guess was Colorado because they have to play Colorado State and that'd only leave one open slot on their schedule

(07-13-2012 06:01 PM)phil77 Wrote:  Big question is does the ACC jump quick at the Big Ten?

I think that's a pretty good idea if we aren't already angling for that type of relationship with the SEC.