CSNbbs

Could be as early as next week.

https://theathletic.com/news/big-ten-pac...7aaP9CvLAD

still not sure what the point is, maybe they can invite the sec into the alliance

I dont see how this helps the media contract situation for the ACC either

(08-20-2021 08:29 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote: [ -> ]Could be as early as next week.

https://theathletic.com/news/big-ten-pac...7aaP9CvLAD

Which gives the $€¢ plenty of time to blow it up by inviting everyone in the "Alliance".

(08-20-2021 08:48 AM)bluesox Wrote: [ -> ]still not sure what the point is, maybe they can invite the sec into the alliance

It's a voting block against the SEC.

They all three probably want Notre Dame to join which means all three conferences have the Big East illness now. 2 of the 3 even have Big East members.

This has to do with the future of the college football playoffs, what media venture will control the media rights and who sits on the committee.

(08-20-2021 09:01 AM)solohawks Wrote: [ -> ]I dont see how this helps the media contract situation for the ACC either

It doesn't probably. But we now have some super best friends.

(08-20-2021 09:01 AM)solohawks Wrote: [ -> ]I dont see how this helps the media contract situation for the ACC either

The only direct line I see is "we could upgrade the value of our home OOC games that you have the rights for ... uhhh, how much will you pay us to do so?"

(08-20-2021 09:03 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-20-2021 08:48 AM)bluesox Wrote: [ -> ]still not sure what the point is, maybe they can invite the sec into the alliance

It's a voting block against the SEC.

They all three probably want Notre Dame to join which means all three conferences have the Big East illness now. 2 of the 3 even have Big East members.

A5 five decisions require consensus. So what does it accomplish? Nothing that will be good, especially for the ACC. The other two have nothing to lose. Only the ACC picks up the check when its over. It doesn't prevent the SEC from earning more. It doesn't overcome the built in advantages in recruiting the most talent rich region, which is the SEC's footprint. It alienates Texas and Oklahoma more because it is specifically protesting a move they considered to be in their self interest and it seems counterproductive to relations with your rights holder for the next 15 years. And it could lead to the loss of some of your current money & donor games.

So it accomplishes nothing strategic for the ACC that couldn't be better handled in house. It's all actually quite laughable.

(08-20-2021 09:29 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-20-2021 09:03 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-20-2021 08:48 AM)bluesox Wrote: [ -> ]still not sure what the point is, maybe they can invite the sec into the alliance

It's a voting block against the SEC.

They all three probably want Notre Dame to join which means all three conferences have the Big East illness now. 2 of the 3 even have Big East members.

A5 five decisions require consensus. So what does it accomplish? Nothing that will be good, especially for the ACC. The other two have nothing to lose. Only the ACC picks up the check when its over. It doesn't prevent the SEC from earning more. It doesn't overcome the built in advantages in recruiting the most talent rich region, which is the SEC's footprint. It alienates Texas and Oklahoma more because it is specifically protesting a move they considered to be in their self interest and it seems counterproductive to relations with your rights holder for the next 15 years. And it could lead to the loss of some of your current money & donor games.

So it accomplishes nothing strategic for the ACC that couldn't be better handled in house. It's all actually quite laughable.

I respectfully disagree. While the details are lacking at this stage, this alliance gives power to the B10/ACC/PAC12. It can't prevent the SEC from poaching teams, but it effectively puts them on an island with respect to decisions going forward. While that island is the equivalent of Oahu, it is still an island and it gives the Alliance closer to equal footing in determining the future of CFB.

From an ACC perspective, it gives them more power than they ever had IMO.

It could also make SEC OOC scheduling quality opponents tougher.

What about future Bowl agreements? SEC vs AAC, MAC, CUSA and Sun Belt.

(08-20-2021 09:29 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]A5 five decisions require consensus. So what does it accomplish? Nothing that will be good, especially for the ACC. The other two have nothing to lose. Only the ACC picks up the check when its over. It doesn't prevent the SEC from earning more. It doesn't overcome the built in advantages in recruiting the most talent rich region, which is the SEC's footprint. It alienates Texas and Oklahoma more because it is specifically protesting a move they considered to be in their self interest and it seems counterproductive to relations with your rights holder for the next 15 years. And it could lead to the loss of some of your current money & donor games.

So it accomplishes nothing strategic for the ACC that couldn't be better handled in house. It's all actually quite laughable.

The SEC eliminated one of the A5. Welcome to the A4, or should I say the SEC and the Alliance. The donor and money games were unilaterally cancelled by the SEC last season anyway.

(08-20-2021 09:41 AM)Orangemen Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-20-2021 09:29 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-20-2021 09:03 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-20-2021 08:48 AM)bluesox Wrote: [ -> ]still not sure what the point is, maybe they can invite the sec into the alliance

It's a voting block against the SEC.

They all three probably want Notre Dame to join which means all three conferences have the Big East illness now. 2 of the 3 even have Big East members.

A5 five decisions require consensus. So what does it accomplish? Nothing that will be good, especially for the ACC. The other two have nothing to lose. Only the ACC picks up the check when its over. It doesn't prevent the SEC from earning more. It doesn't overcome the built in advantages in recruiting the most talent rich region, which is the SEC's footprint. It alienates Texas and Oklahoma more because it is specifically protesting a move they considered to be in their self interest and it seems counterproductive to relations with your rights holder for the next 15 years. And it could lead to the loss of some of your current money & donor games.

So it accomplishes nothing strategic for the ACC that couldn't be better handled in house. It's all actually quite laughable.

I respectfully disagree. While the details are lacking at this stage, this alliance gives power to the B10/ACC/PAC12. It can't prevent the SEC from poaching teams, but it effectively puts them on an island with respect to decisions going forward. While that island is the equivalent of Oahu, it is still an island and it gives the Alliance closer to equal footing in determining the future of CFB.

From an ACC perspective, it gives them more power than they ever had IMO.

You have no leverage in any aspect, especially if this moves beyond the NCAA, which is where a hemmed in SEC will take it, and when they do your revenues will drop further and in all the areas you care about the most. You will have lost nearly 50% of your revenue generation while the SEC will retain it's football revenue advantage and can start working on basketball revenue untapped by the NCAA, which with ESPN's assistance could begin to siphon basketball first schools.

These are the death knells for an NCAA now bereft of its organizing principle, amateurism. In the end the results will be the same, but those who cling to the abandoned paradigm will find treading water difficult when it sinks.

The alliance only seems like safety. You huddle together because you perceive the SEC as a shark so safety in numbers seems logical. The courts are the agent of change here, not the SEC. Texas and Oklahoma anticipated a shifting landscape, analyzed it, and made a consolidation move that better positioned them for many changes extant to college sports.

Posters here see this as a power move based in money and it is, just not for sports objectives. Do you really believe that the unprecedented move by the nations top brand and another top 7 brand occurred just for sports reasons? I don't. They felt the need to distance their brands because of looming demographic shifts so their move was to regional strength which just so happens to also provide more revenue.

As I've said before, giants don't move unless they see something that scares them coming their way. This move wasn't about just sports. They've had decades to make a move based on sports. If stipends are left capped it will contradict the restraint of trade ruling on NIL. Amateurism is on the way out. These disputes are really over the agility of the SEC and UT and OU to pivot more quickly than other conferences because we have always been less embedded in the NCAA. We've been a full part as members, but have been looking at more profitable models since the very early 70's. The hindrance then was monetizing the move while limiting overhead. Now we have the infrastructure, the monetization, and the consolidation of overhead and a clear path to do it.

(08-20-2021 09:51 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-20-2021 09:29 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]A5 five decisions require consensus. So what does it accomplish? Nothing that will be good, especially for the ACC. The other two have nothing to lose. Only the ACC picks up the check when its over. It doesn't prevent the SEC from earning more. It doesn't overcome the built in advantages in recruiting the most talent rich region, which is the SEC's footprint. It alienates Texas and Oklahoma more because it is specifically protesting a move they considered to be in their self interest and it seems counterproductive to relations with your rights holder for the next 15 years. And it could lead to the loss of some of your current money & donor games.

So it accomplishes nothing strategic for the ACC that couldn't be better handled in house. It's all actually quite laughable.

The SEC eliminated one of the A5. Welcome to the A4, or should I say the SEC and the Alliance. The donor and money games were unilaterally cancelled by the SEC last season anyway.

So you are saying that Tech is quite prepared not to play Georgia again? That's quite a hit in public perception. Playing UGa raises your sports status. Not playing them reduces your sports status, perhaps not to Georgia Southern level, but lower.

This realignment isn't about sports per se. It's about public image and being seen as attractive to potential students. It's no time to take an image hit.

(08-20-2021 10:17 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-20-2021 09:41 AM)Orangemen Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-20-2021 09:29 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-20-2021 09:03 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-20-2021 08:48 AM)bluesox Wrote: [ -> ]still not sure what the point is, maybe they can invite the sec into the alliance

It's a voting block against the SEC.

They all three probably want Notre Dame to join which means all three conferences have the Big East illness now. 2 of the 3 even have Big East members.

A5 five decisions require consensus. So what does it accomplish? Nothing that will be good, especially for the ACC. The other two have nothing to lose. Only the ACC picks up the check when its over. It doesn't prevent the SEC from earning more. It doesn't overcome the built in advantages in recruiting the most talent rich region, which is the SEC's footprint. It alienates Texas and Oklahoma more because it is specifically protesting a move they considered to be in their self interest and it seems counterproductive to relations with your rights holder for the next 15 years. And it could lead to the loss of some of your current money & donor games.

So it accomplishes nothing strategic for the ACC that couldn't be better handled in house. It's all actually quite laughable.

I respectfully disagree. While the details are lacking at this stage, this alliance gives power to the B10/ACC/PAC12. It can't prevent the SEC from poaching teams, but it effectively puts them on an island with respect to decisions going forward. While that island is the equivalent of Oahu, it is still an island and it gives the Alliance closer to equal footing in determining the future of CFB.

From an ACC perspective, it gives them more power than they ever had IMO.

You have no leverage in any aspect, especially if this moves beyond the NCAA, which is where a hemmed in SEC will take it, and when they do your revenues will drop further and in all the areas you care about the most. You will have lost nearly 50% of your revenue generation while the SEC will retain it's football revenue advantage and can start working on basketball revenue untapped by the NCAA, which with ESPN's assistance could begin to siphon basketball first schools.

These are the death knells for an NCAA now bereft of its organizing principle, amateurism. In the end the results will be the same, but those who cling to the abandoned paradigm will find treading water difficult when it sinks.

The alliance only seems like safety. You huddle together because you perceive the SEC as a shark so safety in numbers seems logical. The courts are the agent of change here, not the SEC. Texas and Oklahoma anticipated a shifting landscape, analyzed it, and made a consolidation move that better positioned them for many changes extant to college sports.

Posters here see this as a power move based in money and it is, just not for sports objectives. Do you really believe that the unprecedented move by the nations top brand and another top 7 brand occurred just for sports reasons? I don't. They felt the need to distance their brands because of looming demographic shifts so their move was to regional strength which just so happens to also provide more revenue.

As I've said before, giants don't move unless they see something that scares them coming their way. This move wasn't about just sports. They've had decades to make a move based on sports. If stipends are left capped it will contradict the restraint of trade ruling on NIL. Amateurism is on the way out. These disputes are really over the agility of the SEC and UT and OU to pivot more quickly than other conferences because we have always been less embedded in the NCAA. We've been a full part as members, but have been looking at more profitable models since the very early 70's. The hindrance then was monetizing the move while limiting overhead. Now we have the infrastructure, the monetization, and the consolidation of overhead and a clear path to do it.

I picture you typing this in an internal Darth Vader voice....

Look, the SEC is as strong as ever with these moves. It was an incredible acquisition. That being said, if you don't believe the B10 effectively acquiring the votes of the ACC and PAC12 is meaningful, I don't know what to tell you. The ACC is clearly at the kiddie table; there are no delusions of grandeur here. However, the B10's move of acquiring these votes is the best move they could make to match the growing influence of the SEC.

(08-20-2021 10:40 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]So you are saying that Tech is quite prepared not to play Georgia again? That's quite a hit in public perception. Playing UGa raises your sports status. Not playing them reduces your sports status, perhaps not to Georgia Southern level, but lower.

This realignment isn't about sports per se. It's about public image and being seen as attractive to potential students. It's no time to take an image hit.

It takes two to tango. The SEC was the one not wanting to dance last year. I see conference leadership on both sides as not caring about those four games. It is what it is.

I still don't really get the point of this. It seems like it has the potential to be a massive self own on the part of those three conferences.

Is it about the playoffs? A 12 team playoff is good for everyone and helps them close the upcoming funding gap.

Is it scheduling? Because most of the big brands (Southern Cal, Clemson, FSU, Ohio State, obviously ND) all have very tough very profitable upcoming out of conference games on the books.

(08-20-2021 10:51 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-20-2021 10:40 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]So you are saying that Tech is quite prepared not to play Georgia again? That's quite a hit in public perception. Playing UGa raises your sports status. Not playing them reduces your sports status, perhaps not to Georgia Southern level, but lower.

This realignment isn't about sports per se. It's about public image and being seen as attractive to potential students. It's no time to take an image hit.

It takes two to tango. The SEC was the one not wanting to dance last year. I see conference leadership on both sides as not caring about those four games. It is what it is.

Suits me. We'll add no chance of proving oneself to a 40 million dollar deficit in just media revenue. That combination should prove to be dynamite for the ACC.

Instructions with the straight razor: Extend blade. Cut off nose.

I only see one silver lining in this whole mess, it sure as hell is spiking interest!

(08-20-2021 10:55 AM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]I still don't really get the point of this. It seems like it has the potential to be a massive self own on the part of those three conferences.

Is it about the playoffs? A 12 team playoff is good for everyone and helps them close the upcoming funding gap.

Is it scheduling? Because most of the big brands (Southern Cal, Clemson, FSU, Ohio State, obviously ND) all have very tough very profitable upcoming out of conference games on the books.

I think it's likely about pumping the brakes on playoff expansion. After that it's about advancing football without that being at the expense of everything else. After that it's about avoiding college athletics becoming what Hale Almond observed at UGA in the 80's: ”We may not make a university student out of him, but if we can teach him to read and write, maybe he can work at the post office rather than as a garbage man when he gets through with his athletic career.” If there is a brain in the room other than Phillips, it's also about blowing up March Madness to stop sharing the tournament money with over 300 teams, probably nearly half of which are straight up dependent on that welfare. There's plenty of basketball money to be made and help rebalance the landscape.... so long as you don't share it with NJIT and Stetson and Chicago State and Winthrop.

It’s about curbing The SEC’s influence in the upcoming college football playoffs discussion. You’re starting to see the discussion being framed as one of the commonality that exists with The PAC, Big Ten and ACC vs. The SEC.

Mike Decourcy actually touches on this in his latest column.

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/ncaa-foo...b35pemrtuw