(09-21-2023 12:58 AM)micahandme Wrote:  Major realignment is dead, unless FSU somehow tries to break the GOR for the Big Ten (FOX would support this move) or unless we're all waiting until 2032 or so.

That said, two principles for realignment as it stands today.

1. Symmetrical numbers are meaningless. 20-22-24, it doesn't matter. We are in a divisionless, podless world now. The conference are too big to keep divisions and pods in the 12-game season structure of the sport. Instead, consider what brands are big enough to add to revenue. There aren't many in the ACC...UNC, FSU...maybe Miami or Clemson...

2. Notre Dame won't be forced into the SEC or Big Ten until the money dictates it. So far, they still make "enough" to make independence feasible. When the Big Ten 2030 contract comes up (and the playoff money that the SEC and Big Ten make off the new 12-team tourney explodes), the gap will finally force Notre Dame's hand.

If the Big Ten wants to keep a 9 game schedule they will still need an even number of teams.

(09-21-2023 01:25 AM)BruinNation Wrote:  

(09-20-2023 08:27 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-20-2023 07:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-20-2023 06:05 PM)BruinNation Wrote:  Ask yourself this, would FOX, CBS and NBC be willing to pay, even at reduced share, for football games that include USF, Stanford, Kansas or any other school not named Notre Dame, Florida State, North Carolina, Clemson and maybe Miami?

Some would say Colorado because of the Prime Effect, but it feels so random, you don’t know what they will look like in two years if/when Deion is gone.

The B1G did very well in adding USC, Oregon, Washington and UCLA to the conference, which will give greater depth and more weekly matchups for the paying networks. If a new school doesn’t add brand value, they’re not getting an invite.

^^This

Well actually, Fox is already co-paying for Kansas, Colorado, etc.

So you have to ask yourself: Would those schools' games generate more eyeballs playing Big12 schools or Big10 schools?

From that perspective, I don't think it's that difficult a choice.

And for everyone hung up on football results, I'll point you to Rutgers and Maryland (just for example).

This is about eyeballs pure and simple.

And, as we've seen, Fox's deals seem to be weighted on the basketball side. So I think it's merely a matter of time for Kansas. But I've been saying that awhile now. And their improvement plans march ever forward.

And so has USF's for that matter.

And anyone who thinks that million and billion dollar moves are done in the dark? Yeah, ok.

So anyway, like all of realignment so far, it will come down to circumstances.

But then, several from inside the Big10 have said they aren't done yet.

So who knows...

FOX is only partially paying for that nBig 12 content with nBig 12 teams at those nBig 12 rates. The B1G’s networks (FOX, CBS and NBC) have no interest in paying for schools like Kansas and USF, even at partial shares that eventually would have to grow to full payouts in the B1G.

You say a Kansas and USF would generate more eyeballs in the B1G? Of course they would, but that doesn’t mean the networks want to pay for Kansas vs Michigan and USF vs Ohio State matchups. Those aren’t the type of games that will draw any national interest. Sure, those games would get viewers, but it’s because of a OSU, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin, etc.

Colorado is Bitcoin, who the heck knows where their value is going to be in two years.

You say it’s not a difficult choice, I agree. So do the B1G and the networks, which is why Kansas is in the nB12; USF is in AAC, etc.

bolded - actually, we have multiple examples which disprove that assertion.

We could talk about what just happened with SMU to the ACC. Or with Rutgers and Maryland in the past. Or with how SDSU came very close to being in the PAC.

But as you list that you are a UCLA fan, I'll list that one.

We have now heard on the record that the original plan was for USC and Oregon to leave the PAC and go to the Big10.

It wasn't UCLA.

You know, UCLA, the basketball power.

But apparently Fox decided that the pairing with USC should be UCLA.

And so Oregon was out.

So there's example #1.

But yet, in the end, Oregon did receive an invite. Even after several "no"s.

So there are two examples, from two different sides of it, about how Fox said no to Oregon at first, and later (along with the other media partners) said yes to Oregon.

It's all about circumstances.

You can disdain USF or Kansas or whatever other school you want because in your own head you have them assigned in a little box that others would not want.

But in the end, West coast schools are in the ACC. G5 SMU is in the ACC. Colorado left the PAC to return to the Big12. Oklahoma left Oklahoma State behind.

And many many other things that people said would never happen.

And yet, here we are.

YMMV, of course...

(09-20-2023 08:13 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  The B1G is no big rush to get to 20 or 24 teams. They can wait out the ACC GOR and add much better program instead of USF.

Quite. "Who does the Big Ten take to get to 20" is a forum game, not a game that the Big Ten is going to play.

In the abstract, 16 is better than 18 and 18 is better than 20. They got to 18 because 16 came with USC, and then they dithered on 18 for quite a while, until the scheduling fight over filling the weekly Prime Time Saturday commitment got the fence sitters off the fence, as the prime time inventory benefit of two more West Coast schools came into sharper focus.

Waiting until the ACC GOR is closer to expiration will suit the Big Ten just fine.

(09-21-2023 06:13 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-20-2023 08:13 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  The B1G is no big rush to get to 20 or 24 teams. They can wait out the ACC GOR and add much better program instead of USF.

Quite. "Who does the Big Ten take to get to 20" is a forum game, not a game that the Big Ten is going to play.

In the abstract, 16 is better than 18 and 18 is better than 20. They got to 18 because 16 came with USC, and then they dithered on 18 for quite a while, until the scheduling fight over filling the weekly Prime Time Saturday commitment got the fence sitters off the fence, as the prime time inventory benefit of two more West Coast schools came into sharper focus.

Waiting until the ACC GOR is closer to expiration will suit the Big Ten just fine.

I do agree that the Big10 seems to like to play the waiting game, especially when it helps strengthen their negotiating position.

(09-21-2023 12:06 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(09-20-2023 05:47 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 09:03 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Well, we have repeatedly heard (while Warren was still around), that 20 was the number for the Big10.

With WA and OR, that's 18.

Presuming they have to still wait a bit on the ACC, who are 19 and 20 for you?

I think that everyone in, or going into, the Big12 is also on the back burner right now.

I think adding Stanford and USF is the move.

It gets the Big10 into Florida, and sets the table for looking at the ACC.

Big10
Pacific: USC, UCLA, Stanford, Oregon, Washington
West: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern
Central: Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan state
East: Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, USF

And later, for 23 - Va, Duke, Miami - you're on deck : )

24 will be either NC, GT, or Kansas - whichever one that the SEC doesn't take on their path to 24.

If we're going for 20, I'd pick California and Stanford. If we're going for 24, I'd pick California, Stanford, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia and Miami (FL). After that, I'd divide up the 24 teams into 4 divisions of 6.

Pacific: California, Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington

Midwest: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Any
North: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue

Atlantic: Duke, Maryland, Miami (FL), North Carolina, Rutgers, Virginia

Are we trying to win at football or physics? Stanford and Cal will show how poorly they draw. The better move is to add the State of Colorado and the State of Arizona if you can’t get Virginia and North Carolina. The fit is also quite good as every grouping is contiguous states:

West: USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington, ASU

Farm belt: Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota Wisconsin

Industrial North: Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State

East: Purdue, Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers.

It does make you wonder if they might go 24

West: USC, UCLA, Stanford, Oregon Washington ASU

Farm: Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois

Ind North: Northwestern, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Ohio State

East: Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Virginia, North Carolina, UConn or BC or Pitt

But no one is interested in Arizona nor Colorado. Colorado has to keep jumping from Conf to Conf to stay relevant and Arizonas were never mentioned by anyone sans Big 12.

(09-21-2023 12:58 AM)micahandme Wrote:  Major realignment is dead, unless FSU somehow tries to break the GOR for the Big Ten (FOX would support this move) or unless we're all waiting until 2032 or so.

That said, two principles for realignment as it stands today.

1. Symmetrical numbers are meaningless. 20-22-24, it doesn't matter. We are in a divisionless, podless world now. The conference are too big to keep divisions and pods in the 12-game season structure of the sport. Instead, consider what brands are big enough to add to revenue. There aren't many in the ACC...UNC, FSU...maybe Miami or Clemson...

2. Notre Dame won't be forced into the SEC or Big Ten until the money dictates it. So far, they still make "enough" to make independence feasible. When the Big Ten 2030 contract comes up (and the playoff money that the SEC and Big Ten make off the new 12-team tourney explodes), the gap will finally force Notre Dame's hand.

1) Right, they just have to have even numbers if the Conf games are odd.

2) But why would SEC and B10 keep allowing ND preferred nation status for CFP. They can easily make a rule that Conference membership is the first requirement. They can join the Sun Belt, anyone they want but must choose. I just don't get how these Conferences benefit from their current arrangement.

USF is never getting into the B1G. They might luck their way into the ACC one day, but I feel like that is their max. When I watched their home game against Alabama, it looked like there were more Bama fans there than USF fans, although to be fair it could have been red from the Bucs seats. If they really were outnumbered there is nothing "Power" about that at all.

(09-20-2023 05:57 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 09:03 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Well, we have repeatedly heard (while Warren was still around), that 20 was the number for the Big10.

With WA and OR, that's 18.

Presuming they have to still wait a bit on the ACC, who are 19 and 20 for you?

I think that everyone in, or going into, the Big12 is also on the back burner right now.

I think adding Stanford and USF is the move.

It gets the Big10 into Florida, and sets the table for looking at the ACC.

Big10
Pacific: USC, UCLA, Stanford, Oregon, Washington
West: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern
Central: Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan state
East: Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, USF

And later, for 23 - Va, Duke, Miami - you're on deck : )

24 will be either NC, GT, or Kansas - whichever one that the SEC doesn't take on their path to 24.

That is about the absolute worse idea I have seen yet. That even beats, “The BIG should take Kansas and Mizzu,” proposals. When the BIG decides to eat again, it will be state flagships on the menu. Not directional whatever.

Not directional whatever, like USC?

(09-21-2023 01:25 AM)BruinNation Wrote:  

(09-20-2023 08:27 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-20-2023 07:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-20-2023 06:05 PM)BruinNation Wrote:  Ask yourself this, would FOX, CBS and NBC be willing to pay, even at reduced share, for football games that include USF, Stanford, Kansas or any other school not named Notre Dame, Florida State, North Carolina, Clemson and maybe Miami?

Some would say Colorado because of the Prime Effect, but it feels so random, you don’t know what they will look like in two years if/when Deion is gone.

The B1G did very well in adding USC, Oregon, Washington and UCLA to the conference, which will give greater depth and more weekly matchups for the paying networks. If a new school doesn’t add brand value, they’re not getting an invite.

^^This

Well actually, Fox is already co-paying for Kansas, Colorado, etc.

So you have to ask yourself: Would those schools' games generate more eyeballs playing Big12 schools or Big10 schools?

From that perspective, I don't think it's that difficult a choice.

And for everyone hung up on football results, I'll point you to Rutgers and Maryland (just for example).

This is about eyeballs pure and simple.

And, as we've seen, Fox's deals seem to be weighted on the basketball side. So I think it's merely a matter of time for Kansas. But I've been saying that awhile now. And their improvement plans march ever forward.

And so has USF's for that matter.

And anyone who thinks that million and billion dollar moves are done in the dark? Yeah, ok.

So anyway, like all of realignment so far, it will come down to circumstances.

But then, several from inside the Big10 have said they aren't done yet.

So who knows...

FOX is only partially paying for that nBig 12 content with nBig 12 teams at those nBig 12 rates. The B1G’s networks (FOX, CBS and NBC) have no interest in paying for schools like Kansas and USF, even at partial shares that eventually would have to grow to full payouts in the B1G.

You say a Kansas and USF would generate more eyeballs in the B1G? Of course they would, but that doesn’t mean the networks want to pay for Kansas vs Michigan and USF vs Ohio State matchups. Those aren’t the type of games that will draw any national interest. Sure, those games would get viewers, but it’s because of a OSU, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin, etc.

Colorado is Bitcoin, who the heck knows where their value is going to be in two years.

You say it’s not a difficult choice, I agree. So do the B1G and the networks, which is why Kansas is in the nB12; USF is in AAC, etc.

Maybe they will draw better (although Purdue-Syracuse on NBC lends doubt to that theory), but they aren't going to draw $71 million vs. $31 million better.

(09-21-2023 05:31 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-21-2023 01:25 AM)BruinNation Wrote:  

(09-20-2023 08:27 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-20-2023 07:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-20-2023 06:05 PM)BruinNation Wrote:  Ask yourself this, would FOX, CBS and NBC be willing to pay, even at reduced share, for football games that include USF, Stanford, Kansas or any other school not named Notre Dame, Florida State, North Carolina, Clemson and maybe Miami?

Some would say Colorado because of the Prime Effect, but it feels so random, you don’t know what they will look like in two years if/when Deion is gone.

The B1G did very well in adding USC, Oregon, Washington and UCLA to the conference, which will give greater depth and more weekly matchups for the paying networks. If a new school doesn’t add brand value, they’re not getting an invite.

^^This

Well actually, Fox is already co-paying for Kansas, Colorado, etc.

So you have to ask yourself: Would those schools' games generate more eyeballs playing Big12 schools or Big10 schools?

From that perspective, I don't think it's that difficult a choice.

And for everyone hung up on football results, I'll point you to Rutgers and Maryland (just for example).

This is about eyeballs pure and simple.

And, as we've seen, Fox's deals seem to be weighted on the basketball side. So I think it's merely a matter of time for Kansas. But I've been saying that awhile now. And their improvement plans march ever forward.

And so has USF's for that matter.

And anyone who thinks that million and billion dollar moves are done in the dark? Yeah, ok.

So anyway, like all of realignment so far, it will come down to circumstances.

But then, several from inside the Big10 have said they aren't done yet.

So who knows...

FOX is only partially paying for that nBig 12 content with nBig 12 teams at those nBig 12 rates. The B1G’s networks (FOX, CBS and NBC) have no interest in paying for schools like Kansas and USF, even at partial shares that eventually would have to grow to full payouts in the B1G.

You say a Kansas and USF would generate more eyeballs in the B1G? Of course they would, but that doesn’t mean the networks want to pay for Kansas vs Michigan and USF vs Ohio State matchups. Those aren’t the type of games that will draw any national interest. Sure, those games would get viewers, but it’s because of a OSU, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin, etc.

Colorado is Bitcoin, who the heck knows where their value is going to be in two years.

You say it’s not a difficult choice, I agree. So do the B1G and the networks, which is why Kansas is in the nB12; USF is in AAC, etc.

bolded - actually, we have multiple examples which disprove that assertion.

We could talk about what just happened with SMU to the ACC. Or with Rutgers and Maryland in the past. Or with how SDSU came very close to being in the PAC.

But as you list that you are a UCLA fan, I'll list that one.

We have now heard on the record that the original plan was for USC and Oregon to leave the PAC and go to the Big10.

It wasn't UCLA.

You know, UCLA, the basketball power.

But apparently Fox decided that the pairing with USC should be UCLA.

And so Oregon was out.

So there's example #1.

But yet, in the end, Oregon did receive an invite. Even after several "no"s.

So there are two examples, from two different sides of it, about how Fox said no to Oregon at first, and later (along with the other media partners) said yes to Oregon.

It's all about circumstances.

You can disdain USF or Kansas or whatever other school you want because in your own head you have them assigned in a little box that others would not want.

But in the end, West coast schools are in the ACC. G5 SMU is in the ACC. Colorado left the PAC to return to the Big12. Oklahoma left Oklahoma State behind.

And many many other things that people said would never happen.

And yet, here we are.

YMMV, of course...

The sources on USC/Oregon instead of USC/UCLA were not definitive. I still don't believe that. And I always believed McMurphy and Wilner that UW and Oregon would be in the Big 10 by 2031 at the latest. Unlike Wilner, I expected it to be sooner. McMurphy seemed to believe it would be sooner, but more like a couple of years instead of a couple of months.

I had heard Warren say pretty much the exact opposite: there was no set number, and the Big Ten wasn't even necessarily married to an even number of teams.

Disagree with me? Well, let me give you an example. Let's say that ND continues to say no to the Big Ten for the next 50 years, then all of a sudden reverses course and says, "We want in." What do you think would happen then? Do you honestly think the Big Ten would say, "Sorry, we'd love to have you, but we're at 20 now, so there's no more room."?

As for further particulars, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the Big Ten's "no" to Stanford was more of a "not right now" than a "never." As it was, the Big Ten already was adding four west coast programs. It's not unreasonable to expect that the Big Ten wanted some time to gauge how they would work out before adding any more programs out west.

(08-09-2023 10:05 PM)NotoriousOne Wrote:  ....
I think 24 is the right number so I would just end the western worries with Stanford and Cal despite the value issues. It honestly would be kept at a minor reduction for the original 16 members, particularly with a Friday deal.

Do it and wait for the ACC…

Stanford and Cal, yes. Of course, the B1G would need to be poaching these schools from the ACC now as well.

Other western options I can imagine for the B1G if the SEC grabs up most of the Atlantic options: Utah, Colorado, perhaps Kansas or Arizona State.

(08-09-2023 09:03 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Well, we have repeatedly heard (while Warren was still around), that 20 was the number for the Big10.

With WA and OR, that's 18.

Presuming they have to still wait a bit on the ACC, who are 19 and 20 for you?

I think that everyone in, or going into, the Big12 is also on the back burner right now.

I think adding Stanford and USF is the move.

It gets the Big10 into Florida, and sets the table for looking at the ACC.

Big10
Pacific: USC, UCLA, Stanford, Oregon, Washington
West: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern
Central: Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan state
East: Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, USF

And later, for 23 - Va, Duke, Miami - you're on deck : )

24 will be either NC, GT, or Kansas - whichever one that the SEC doesn't take on their path to 24.

I think you'd get an average college football fan to name a single USF player or coach in their entire school history. That's not hyperbole. I would be very surprised if USF is on the B1G's top 8. The recent AAU status (vs its overall academic profile) is not remotely enough to move the needle.

I think USF has a lot of potential for whatever remains of the future of college football...but they're just too late to the game for a B1G invite. That would be a giant leap.

(09-21-2023 08:29 AM)Sellular1 Wrote:  

(09-20-2023 05:57 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 09:03 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Well, we have repeatedly heard (while Warren was still around), that 20 was the number for the Big10.

With WA and OR, that's 18.

Presuming they have to still wait a bit on the ACC, who are 19 and 20 for you?

I think that everyone in, or going into, the Big12 is also on the back burner right now.

I think adding Stanford and USF is the move.

It gets the Big10 into Florida, and sets the table for looking at the ACC.

Big10
Pacific: USC, UCLA, Stanford, Oregon, Washington
West: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern
Central: Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan state
East: Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, USF

And later, for 23 - Va, Duke, Miami - you're on deck : )

24 will be either NC, GT, or Kansas - whichever one that the SEC doesn't take on their path to 24.

That is about the absolute worse idea I have seen yet. That even beats, “The BIG should take Kansas and Mizzu,” proposals. When the BIG decides to eat again, it will be state flagships on the menu. Not directional whatever.

Not directional whatever, like USC?

Come on...USC isn't remotely a directional in the traditional sense whatsoever. It's a private institution. USC wasn't set up to fill needs within an area of a state. In USC's case it was just a description of the location and easily could have been named after a big benefactor back in the day. With that being said...USF certainly has grown up well beyond its original mission and role. Getting a B1G invite anytime soon is another matter though. I'd be shocked it that happens in my lifetime. But these are crazy times.

USC and Northwestern aren't directionals. They're private schools that just happened to be named after the geographic location (Chicago was the Northwest Territory back then) as opposed to a benefactor like Vanderbilt, Stanford, etc.

(09-21-2023 07:39 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  ... 2) But why would SEC and B10 keep allowing ND preferred nation status for CFP. They can easily make a rule that Conference membership is the first requirement. ...

Even setting aside that Notre Dame has a commitment to join the ACC if they join anybody for the duration of the current GOR, the Big Ten is not going to force Notre Dame to join a conference if it means Notre Dame joining the SEC, and visa versa, and that's why they keep allowing ND favored nation status for the CFP.

(09-21-2023 08:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  The sources on USC/Oregon instead of USC/UCLA were not definitive. I still don't believe that. And I always believed McMurphy and Wilner that UW and Oregon would be in the Big 10 by 2031 at the latest. Unlike Wilner, I expected it to be sooner. McMurphy seemed to believe it would be sooner, but more like a couple of years instead of a couple of months.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...-and-more/

Quote:Robbins said out loud what the industry has been whispering: Fox had a significant hand in luring USC and UCLA to the Big Ten.

Quote:"USC started this whole thing [to move to the Big Ten]. I think UCLA was a reluctant follower in this whole thing. But [USC] needed a travel partner close by so it makes sense," Robbins explained. "If Oregon calls Washington up and says, 'I can double the amount of money you're getting; come with me to the Big Ten,' Washington is going to say, 'OK, I'm in.' They would love to have gone.

"When I heard it first, the deal was going to be USC-Oregon [to the Big Ten]. That makes sense. … Their TV market is not that big, [but] they play in different colored uniforms, and they win. That's where I would have started this thing off.

"I think Fox wanted to consolidate L.A. and not let anybody else in [with USC-UCLA]. I think it's brilliant. Well played."

And this article was also quoted in Sports Illustrated:

https://www.si.com/fannation/college/cfb...her-school

Quote:Arizona president Robert Robbins claims that Oregon was in fact the other primary target for the Big Ten along with USC, not UCLA.

"When I heard it first, the deal was going to be USC [and] Oregon [to the Big Ten]," Robbins told CBS Sports.

"Their TV market is not that big, [but] they play in different colored uniforms, and they win. That's where I would have started this thing off. I think Fox wanted to consolidate LA and not let anybody else in [with USC and UCLA]. I think it's brilliant. Well played."

So, you're of course welcome to doubt the words of a University president from the PAC - someone in a position to be "in the know" - in favor of journalists who get their info from... where exactly?

(09-21-2023 04:23 AM)schmolik Wrote:  If the Big Ten wants to keep a 9 game schedule they will still need an even number of teams.

This is really not a big deal. Play an extra game or one fewer. Schedules are already seriously unbalanced, so it makes no difference if Nebraska plays Indiana as a 10th game or if Rutgers drops a game and plays an extra non-conference opponent.

If the B1G wanted USF, and if the money made sense, and if they feared USF getting locked into a GoR with another conference, the B1G would simply add USF and go with an odd number of teams.

(09-21-2023 01:21 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-21-2023 07:39 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  ... 2) But why would SEC and B10 keep allowing ND preferred nation status for CFP. They can easily make a rule that Conference membership is the first requirement. ...

Even setting aside that Notre Dame has a commitment to join the ACC if they join anybody for the duration of the current GOR, the Big Ten is not going to force Notre Dame to join a conference if it means Notre Dame joining the SEC, and visa versa, and that's why they keep allowing ND favored nation status for the CFP.

There will be no need to publicly force anything. Should the Big 10 and SEC expand to 20 each and schedule 10 conference games leaving 2 OOC super league games to be scheduled they have an option.

1. Notre Dame if it is to be considered eligible for a slot in the an upper tier playoff will schedule 6 games against the Big 10 and 6 games against the SEC 3-3 on home and away. Everyone could have a preseason game for a 7th home ticket in the book by scheduling an in state school or out of state school which is at a lower tier for the opener and dress rehearsal for beginning conference play.

2. The SEC and Big 10 could sign an agreement that the 2 OOC games would be with each other thereby passively excluding Notre Dame and that pressure may perhaps get them to choose.

3. The SEC and Big 10 could move to 20 allowing Notre Dame to form its own conference using the remnant ACC inclusive of Cal and Stanford and whatever New Big 12 schools (including old PAC schools) they choose lure to create it. Their champion would be guaranteed a slot in the expanded playoffs. This would leave the lion's share of slots to the Big 10 and SEC but allow the networks to include perhaps 2 from the conference headed by Notre Dame for market reach. I suspect such a conference would earn less due to number of brands than the SEC or Big 10, and could be used to help strengthen the consolidation of value of the SEC/Big 10 for the respective networks. Think possibly Vanderbilt or Northwestern joining the Notre Dame conference, or perhaps any school not wishing to keep pace with the investment of the SEC or Big 10.

This would allow for old rivalries to be maintained and included in the upper tier without forcing old rivals of unequal value into the same conferences.

Perhaps that third conference could look something like this:

Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Christian, Texas Tech

Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, California, Colorado, Stanford, Utah

Central Florida, Georgia Tech, Houston, N.C. State, South Florida, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest


In that world the Big 10 could have expanded to 20 with Miami and Virginia.

The SEC could have expanded to 20 with Clemson, Duke, Florida State, and North Carolina

The ACC is 100% accounted for in the realignment. Notre Dame is the key brand. Kansas adds considerable value to the conference.

The Big 10 picks up beltway Virginia without splitting it with the SEC and has Miami for a Florida base.

The SEC picks up its second major Florida school and gains ground on advertising leverage in Florida. The SEC picks up 2 more football brands and two key hoops brands to go with Kentucky, meaning ESPN kept the 4 key brands it wanted.

ESPN and FOX split the cost of the new ACC/Big 12. ESPN keeps 100% of the SEC and FOX holds its leverage over CBS and NBC with the Big 10.

Notre Dame has a fiefdom comprised of schools in regions where it would like to play. They have inclusion while remaining with some peers and can essentially call their own shots though they are now in a conference essentially created for them where they will play against schools investing similar levels of revenue into athletics, but they maintain access to all post season events.

The Big 10 and SEC both get things they wanted. Each has additions that meet their parameters, and neither gets everything they may have wanted.

That's 68 schools.

Out of the current alignments would be: Oregon State and Washington State from the PAC 12. Added would be South Florida.

So, Bruce the SEC and Big 10 by scheduling 10 in conference games could drive any of these three possible scenarios.

We could split Notre Dame between us through this, force them to decide, or permit them to form their own third conference likely centered around the ACC but which could easily be split by FOX and ESPN covering most of the realignment issues.

Or it could all be piecemealed and wind up in a bigger mess than it is in now. I always hope for order and prepare myself for chaos. We'll see.

(09-21-2023 01:46 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  

(09-21-2023 04:23 AM)schmolik Wrote:  If the Big Ten wants to keep a 9 game schedule they will still need an even number of teams.

This is really not a big deal. Play an extra game or one fewer. Schedules are already seriously unbalanced, so it makes no difference if Nebraska plays Indiana as a 10th game or if Rutgers drops a game and plays an extra non-conference opponent.

If the B1G wanted USF, and if the money made sense, and if they feared USF getting locked into a GoR with another conference, the B1G would simply add USF and go with an odd number of teams.

I highly doubt USF is the school the Big Ten is going to give up the 9th conference game for.