https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...scheduling
It looks like the Pac-12, Big Ten and ACC have been talking about an alliance. They said it is likely a scheduling alliance but other things are also being discussed. It looks like they are pretty friendly in that picture so I guess that means that the Big Ten will not be trying to raid the Pac-12. I guess the commissioners have figured that the SEC is the enemy and that is why they are doing this.
I am wondering whether they will block out playing the SEC so that the SEC will not get any non-conference games with any team in any of the Pac-12, Big Ten and ACC. Setting up specific big matchups would be good for all of these conferences.
I think the commissioners realize this is desperation time so they better team up with each other to survive the SEC.
In basketball this would be ideal if you wanted to set up a "super league" for college that you could sell to the rest of the world via internet streaming. This is where the big money would happen for these three leagues. It would be very enticing to sell to a world audience the best college basketball league in the US. The NBA and basketball in general is super popular around the world so i think selling this
would work.
This will last about as long as it takes ESPN to get Phillips on the phone.
Our cooperation with ESPN can be had for a price. :)
(08-14-2021 12:20 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote: [ -> ]This will last about as long as it takes ESPN to get Phillips on the phone.
I think ESPN might be the big winner out of all of this if they manage to get the big non conference football games. Funny how that works.
I wonder whether they might try to screw the SEC in the college playoff by pooling their votes and getting only conference champions in the playoff. Pac-12, Big Ten, ACC , SEC and two conference winners from the group of 5. That would probably make the SEC go crazy but I think they would have the votes to push this through.
(08-14-2021 12:39 AM)tj_2009 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-14-2021 12:20 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote: [ -> ]This will last about as long as it takes ESPN to get Phillips on the phone.
I think ESPN might be the big winner out of all of this if they manage to get the big non conference football games. Funny how that works.
I wonder whether they might try to screw the SEC in the college playoff by pooling their votes and getting only conference champions in the playoff. Pac-12, Big Ten, ACC , SEC and two conference winners from the group of 5. That would probably make the SEC go crazy but I think they would have the votes to push this through.
Group of 6 not 5. You forgot the Big12.
I think this is a voting alliance not just for the CFP but for all things that are coming down the road over the next few years. There will be a lot of things the P4 want done that the other conferences don't. So they need to pool their resources.
For the CFP, I think this is why the SEC and ND are not part of this alliance. The B1G, Pac12 and ACC all want their champions to be guaranteed to be in the playoffs not just the top 6 "ranked" conference champions and the SEC doesn't care because they know even if there's an upset in their CCG that they'll make the top 6. If an unranked team beats the favorite for the ACC, B1G or Pac12, they're CCG winner probably won't make the playoffs. ND wants any playoff expansion because then they'll know that they never have to be in a conference.
The B1G and Pac12 have been left out of the CFP so many times that they absolutely want their champions guaranteed to be in and the ACC is one bad Clemson year away from missing the CFP.
(08-14-2021 12:49 AM)ChrisLords Wrote: [ -> ] (08-14-2021 12:39 AM)tj_2009 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-14-2021 12:20 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote: [ -> ]This will last about as long as it takes ESPN to get Phillips on the phone.
I think ESPN might be the big winner out of all of this if they manage to get the big non conference football games. Funny how that works.
I wonder whether they might try to screw the SEC in the college playoff by pooling their votes and getting only conference champions in the playoff. Pac-12, Big Ten, ACC , SEC and two conference winners from the group of 5. That would probably make the SEC go crazy but I think they would have the votes to push this through.
Group of 6 not 5. You forgot the Big12.
I think this is a voting alliance not just for the CFP but for all things that are coming down the road over the next few years. There will be a lot of things the P4 want done that the other conferences don't. So they need to pool their resources.
For the CFP, I think this is why the SEC and ND are not part of this alliance. The B1G, Pac12 and ACC all want their champions to be guaranteed to be in the playoffs not just the top 6 "ranked" conference champions and the SEC doesn't care because they know even if there's an upset in their CCG that they'll make the top 6. If an unranked team beats the favorite for the ACC, B1G or Pac12, they're CCG winner probably won't make the playoffs. ND wants any playoff expansion because then they'll know that they never have to be in a conference.
The B1G and Pac12 have been left out of the CFP so many times that they absolutely want their champions guaranteed to be in and the ACC is one bad Clemson year away from missing the CFP.
I see 41 teams listed as on board with the alliance, but I wonder if that was just an number thrown out because the number of teams. With the SEC and ND being integral players on the committee to expand the playoff I wonder our role in this alliance.
ND just might have to make a choice.
This alliance very clearly could freeze Notre Dame out.
Unless the plan is to boycott the SEC I'm not seeing the advantage of a scheduling alliance. I think such a boycott is illegal.
(08-14-2021 05:16 AM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ]ND just might have to make a choice.
This alliance very clearly could freeze Notre Dame out.
Well, if the "alliance" will not schedule games with an affiliate, independent ND, then it is pushing ND into an "alliance" with the SEC, I guess.
(08-14-2021 08:06 AM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]Unless the plan is to boycott the SEC I'm not seeing the advantage of a scheduling alliance. I think such a boycott is illegal.
No, it's the other way around: the SEC is thinking of cutting out all P5 non-conference games - including the ACC/SEC rivalry games.
https://www.outkick.com/another-conferen...h-revenue/
Quote:...I think you have to add another conference game. You’re talking about $70 million per school (being distributed by the league). If that’s the case, the one thing I don’t want you doing anymore is going out and playing teams from other leagues. We’ll keep that money in-house. We’ll keep that money among ourselves. Why do we want to share that much revenue when we’re driving it in?
(08-14-2021 08:22 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ] (08-14-2021 08:06 AM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]Unless the plan is to boycott the SEC I'm not seeing the advantage of a scheduling alliance. I think such a boycott is illegal.
No, it's the other way around: the SEC is thinking of cutting out all P5 non-conference games - including the ACC/SEC rivalry games.
https://www.outkick.com/another-conferen...h-revenue/
Quote:...I think you have to add another conference game. You’re talking about $70 million per school (being distributed by the league). If that’s the case, the one thing I don’t want you doing anymore is going out and playing teams from other leagues. We’ll keep that money in-house. We’ll keep that money among ourselves. Why do we want to share that much revenue when we’re driving it in?
Fine, we own the state of SC anyway. Maybe an annual rivalry game with UNC would be more exciting. I grew up in Charlotte, so I actually despised the tarheels more than the game chickens.
(08-14-2021 12:49 AM)ChrisLords Wrote: [ -> ] (08-14-2021 12:39 AM)tj_2009 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-14-2021 12:20 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote: [ -> ]This will last about as long as it takes ESPN to get Phillips on the phone.
I think ESPN might be the big winner out of all of this if they manage to get the big non conference football games. Funny how that works.
I wonder whether they might try to screw the SEC in the college playoff by pooling their votes and getting only conference champions in the playoff. Pac-12, Big Ten, ACC , SEC and two conference winners from the group of 5. That would probably make the SEC go crazy but I think they would have the votes to push this through.
Group of 6 not 5. You forgot the Big12.
I think this is a voting alliance not just for the CFP but for all things that are coming down the road over the next few years. There will be a lot of things the P4 want done that the other conferences don't. So they need to pool their resources.
For the CFP, I think this is why the SEC and ND are not part of this alliance. The B1G, Pac12 and ACC all want their champions to be guaranteed to be in the playoffs not just the top 6 "ranked" conference champions and the SEC doesn't care because they know even if there's an upset in their CCG that they'll make the top 6. If an unranked team beats the favorite for the ACC, B1G or Pac12, they're CCG winner probably won't make the playoffs. ND wants any playoff expansion because then they'll know that they never have to be in a conference.
The B1G and Pac12 have been left out of the CFP so many times that they absolutely want their champions guaranteed to be in and the ACC is one bad Clemson year away from missing the CFP.
I did forget about the Big 12. It looks like the commissioners for the Pac-12, Big Ten and ACC also forgot about the Big 12 in their negotiations, but they may not forget about the Big 12 when they have a chance to stick it to the SEC. I bet they would have the votes if they pushed through guarantee spots for the champions of the Pac-12, Big Ten, ACC, SEC and the highest ranked next two conference champions. This would really make the SEC mad as they thought they would get multiple teams in the playoffs. Although on the other hand ESPN will have a say after they finalize the plans for the alliance. I have the same feeling that they are going to vote together on more things than college football. The commissioner for the Pac-12 George Kliavkoff is an alum from Boston University and Virginia and has experience in media (NBC Universal) and sports gambling so he might be someone who would might push this internet streaming angle. Which may mean a super league for college basketball to sell to the world audience (Basketball is the number 2 most popular sport in the world) might become a reality. It sounds like that is why the Pac-12 picked him for his experience with media.
(08-14-2021 12:57 AM)domer1978 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-14-2021 12:49 AM)ChrisLords Wrote: [ -> ] (08-14-2021 12:39 AM)tj_2009 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-14-2021 12:20 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote: [ -> ]This will last about as long as it takes ESPN to get Phillips on the phone.
I think ESPN might be the big winner out of all of this if they manage to get the big non conference football games. Funny how that works.
I wonder whether they might try to screw the SEC in the college playoff by pooling their votes and getting only conference champions in the playoff. Pac-12, Big Ten, ACC , SEC and two conference winners from the group of 5. That would probably make the SEC go crazy but I think they would have the votes to push this through.
Group of 6 not 5. You forgot the Big12.
I think this is a voting alliance not just for the CFP but for all things that are coming down the road over the next few years. There will be a lot of things the P4 want done that the other conferences don't. So they need to pool their resources.
For the CFP, I think this is why the SEC and ND are not part of this alliance. The B1G, Pac12 and ACC all want their champions to be guaranteed to be in the playoffs not just the top 6 "ranked" conference champions and the SEC doesn't care because they know even if there's an upset in their CCG that they'll make the top 6. If an unranked team beats the favorite for the ACC, B1G or Pac12, they're CCG winner probably won't make the playoffs. ND wants any playoff expansion because then they'll know that they never have to be in a conference.
The B1G and Pac12 have been left out of the CFP so many times that they absolutely want their champions guaranteed to be in and the ACC is one bad Clemson year away from missing the CFP.
I see 41 teams listed as on board with the alliance, but I wonder if that was just an number thrown out because the number of teams. With the SEC and ND being integral players on the committee to expand the playoff I wonder our role in this alliance.
I think the Pac-12, Big Ten and ACC commissioners know what the SEC wants. I don't think they thought about Notre Dame because they are trying to save the Pac-12, Big Ten and ACC. I am sure Notre Dame will find out along with the SEC what is being planned. I think part of the reason for the alliance is to get the votes to do what they want to do. Add in the Big 12 remaining votes and some from the other conferences and they will have the majority to do what they want, and not what the SEC wants.
(08-14-2021 05:16 AM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ]ND just might have to make a choice.
This alliance very clearly could freeze Notre Dame out.
For sure, i was thinking that as well. Notre Dame might get caught in the crossfire to screw the SEC. By pushing only conference champions they could screw the SEC, who thought they were getting multiple spots in the twelve team playoff. Notre Dame would be a casualty in the haste to stop the SEC from taking over everything.
(08-14-2021 08:06 AM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]Unless the plan is to boycott the SEC I'm not seeing the advantage of a scheduling alliance. I think such a boycott is illegal.
Why would boycotting the SEC be illegal? It is just a decision that they made to not schedule any SEC teams for any sports. They could also come up with a basketball super league to sell to the world via internet streaming and shut SEC teams out of that league. What about if they decide to say only champions of leagues will go to the football playoff. The SEC would not get more than one team in the playoff. They might have the votes to do this as well. What about if they passed a new regulation that specific academic standards are required for all schools playing college football? The S
EC would be crying if that got passed, because that is their big advantage over the Pac-12, Big Ten and ACC so things might level off the other way. There is a lot of things you can do when you have the majority of votes.
Throughout the leadership of Kramer, Slive, and Sankey, has the SEC ever been left in the dark or blindsided by anything major in any aspect of college athletics? Even tifts with the NCAA have been internally handled at or above expectations. The SEC is in a walk away position now that Texas and Oklahoma are on board if the other conferences push it to that point. Also, I believe the SEC-ACC intrastate games will go on as long as the ACC allows. It is a benefit all around to the SEC to maintain those intrastate rivalries and relationships. Don't let the BIG push your philosophy. You have a new commissioner who has a chance to lead from the front.
(08-14-2021 08:11 AM)TerryD Wrote: [ -> ] (08-14-2021 05:16 AM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ]ND just might have to make a choice.
This alliance very clearly could freeze Notre Dame out.
Well, if the "alliance" will not schedule games with an affiliate, independent ND, then it is pushing ND into an "alliance" with the SEC, I guess.
I think this is setup to be a defense against the SEC, i don't think it would preclude playing games against Notre Dame though. Notre Dame might get caught in the crossfire though if it is deemed by the alliance that it will hurt the SEC more by limiting the playoff to champions only. The SEC would have been the big winner of a 12 team playoff but if it gets voted to only champions of leagues then the SEC will only have one representative.
(08-14-2021 09:43 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote: [ -> ]Throughout the leadership of Kramer, Slive, and Sankey, has the SEC ever been left in the dark or blindsided by anything major in any aspect of college athletics? Even tifts with the NCAA have been internally handled at or above expectations. The SEC is in a walk away position now that Texas and Oklahoma are on board if the other conferences push it to that point. Also, I believe the SEC-ACC intrastate games will go on as long as the ACC allows. It is a benefit all around to the SEC to maintain those intrastate rivalries and relationships. Don't let the BIG push your philosophy. You have a new commissioner who has a chance to lead from the front.
I think the new ACC commissioner Jim Phillips is a former B1G athletic director so he has a lot of connections with the B1G. It turns out that the B1G commissioner is an Arizona State and Notre Dame Alum and the Pac 12 commissioner is a Boston University and Virginia alum so looking at their backgrounds, it is understandable why they want to work together. I don't know about the SEC-ACC interstate games, i guess we will see what the Pac-12, Big Ten and ACC commissioners decide.
i guess there is a first for everything so maybe the SEC might get blindsided this time. The Pac-12, Big Ten, ACC alliance plus some of the remainders of the Big 12 and the other conferences have the votes to impose whatever they deem will be in the best interest of their conferences so the SEC will be along for the ride and have to take what the majority want.
(08-14-2021 09:43 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote: [ -> ]Throughout the leadership of Kramer, Slive, and Sankey, has the SEC ever been left in the dark or blindsided by anything major in any aspect of college athletics? Even tifts with the NCAA have been internally handled at or above expectations. The SEC is in a walk away position now that Texas and Oklahoma are on board if the other conferences push it to that point. Also, I believe the SEC-ACC intrastate games will go on as long as the ACC allows. It is a benefit all around to the SEC to maintain those intrastate rivalries and relationships. Don't let the BIG push your philosophy. You have a new commissioner who has a chance to lead from the front.
1. I don't really see this "alliance" as anything but a discussion amid a swiftly changing conference athletics picture due to NIL, the potential uncapping of stipends, and the economic 9.0 that hit when OU and UT announced.
2. If the ACC did ally against the SEC's position, which coincides with ESPN's vision, they would be parsed out in a heartbeat and you better believe their top ratings games with year end rivals would end. They don't serve an SEC purpose. The do serve an USCe and UF purpose. Georgia really wouldn't care and your own administration at KY isn't enamored of the Louisville game though fans probably are.
3. The SEC would likely deal with USCe's and UF's concerns by grabbing FSU and Clemson at the first real chance. They don't add much to the SEC but they don't detract either and it would be the easiest fix.
4. I really don't see a great divide between the ACC and SEC at all other than what divided us to begin with, emphasis on sports. But the weak link is Phillips. If you want to see what an agenda driven commissioner can do just look at what Warren did to the Big 10. I'm not saying Phillips is Warren, but does anyone really know him yet? Remember, I was cautious about Sankey for two years because he didn't stomp out divisive issues quickly enough. He does now. You just don't know who you have until they face a crisis and who they turn to for help is your tell. And if they don't turn to anyone that's an extreme. They are either supremely gifted, or supremely destructive. Phillips has to listen to Warren and Kliavkoff, but if he sides with a bungler or a newbie from another industry in a way that alienates half of ESPN's holdings then he is an idiot and should be treated as such.
(08-14-2021 12:20 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote: [ -> ]This will last about as long as it takes ESPN to get Phillips on the phone.
You have also pointed out presumably the only functional brain among those three commissioners. And the only one with experience running a college athletic department.