(08-13-2021 08:06 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 07:49 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  I'm more curious to see if this leads to possible closed door discussion about dissecting the BigXII. The idea seems fantastical and probably not close to reality but it's fun to imagine.

I'd like to see something good happen to at least some of the remaining 8, but I'm not optimistic.

The B1G is driving this alliance. There are academic snobs in both the Pac and the ACC that the B1G consider to be peers. This alliance is: 1) opposition to the SEC and 2) a signal that they're not interested in expanding with B12 schools.

Yeah I definitely won't say you're wrong but I have a sneaky suspicion that the PAC will add some of the BigXII leftovers. What is probably fantasy land is all 8 being rescued. I have said in numerous threads, I truly believe Kansas, Okie St., and Texas Tech will find homes, for the rest it's going to be tough.

(08-13-2021 08:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 08:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 07:30 PM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  https://theathletic.com/news/big-ten-pac...v1mfs4guai


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, if the "power" comes from the combined ACC/Big10/Pac12 voting block---why not include the Big12? The B12 still carries the same voting power as any other P5 for now---and its pretty likely the Big12 would be the most sympathetic of all P5 conferences to concerns of SEC dominance and poaching. Clearly not a good sign for the Big12's "power" future.

WVU must be having an 'Eerie feeling of deja-vu. It was 10 years ago next month that Pitt and Cuse left the Big East, making the Big East a Dead AQ Conference Walking. Now the same thing has happened to the Big 12.

But this time, they don't appear to have a parachute to pull the string on to prevent a crash landing.

The thing is---I actually think the Big12 is in a tremendously better position than the Big East was in that period.

For starters---they still have 8 members---all of which have either been P5 members for all---or most---of their histories. The league still largely makes geographical sense and has pretty decent replacement options (literally, in some cases--some of the exact same replacement options the Big East chose from in 2005 and the SWC looked at in 1993).

For instance, BYU was kicked around as a possible addition to a proposed SWC and Big8 merger in 1993. Both Cinci and USF were actual BE replacement choices after the first ACC raid. UCF was considered by the Big East later when TCU emerged as the better option. After 7 years of excellent ESPN exposure, program building, and a substantial investment in facilities---Houston and Memphis--both in the B12 footprint---are now excellent replacement options--each probably better than they were in 2016. Furthermore---there is no basketball vs football school strife---and no divorce decree sitting in a safety deposit box waiting for someone to trigger it.

While there are situational similarities, as long as that 8 B12 team core sticks together---I would suggest to you that the Big12 rump has more reason to be optimistic about their future than the Big East could after losing Pitt and Syracuse.

(08-13-2021 08:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 08:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 08:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 07:30 PM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  https://theathletic.com/news/big-ten-pac...v1mfs4guai


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, if the "power" comes from the combined ACC/Big10/Pac12 voting block---why not include the Big12? The B12 still carries the same voting power as any other P5 for now---and its pretty likely the Big12 would be the most sympathetic of all P5 conferences to concerns of SEC dominance and poaching. Clearly not a good sign for the Big12's "power" future.

WVU must be having an 'Eerie feeling of deja-vu. It was 10 years ago next month that Pitt and Cuse left the Big East, making the Big East a Dead AQ Conference Walking. Now the same thing has happened to the Big 12.

But this time, they don't appear to have a parachute to pull the string on to prevent a crash landing.

The thing is---I actually think the Big12 is in a tremendously better position than the Big East was in that period.

For starters---they still have 8 members---all of which have either been P5 members for all---or most---of their histories. The league still largely makes geographical sense and has pretty decent replacement options (literally, in some cases--some of the exact same replacement options the Big East chose from in 2005). BYU was kicked around as a possible addition to a proposed SWC and Big8 merger in 1993. Cinci was a BE replacement choice after the first ACC raid. UCF was considered by the Big East later when TCU emerged as the better option. After 7 years of excellent ESPN exposure, program building, and a substantial investment in facilities---Houston and Memphis--both in the B12 footprint---are now excellent replacement options--each probably better than they were in 2016.

While there are situational similarities, as long as that 8 B12 team core sticks together---I would suggest to you that the Big12 rump has more reason to be optimistic about their future than the Big East could after losing Pitt and Syracuse.

No question, the L8 is in much better position. The Big East was stripped for parts down to blocks replacing wheels.

The L8 otoh, has no further value to the existing Ps, so will likely stick together. Doing so will allow it to grab schools like BYU and Houston and Cincy, which will be comparable to the existing members.

The big loser here could be the AAC, which would clearly fall behind the L8 - say L10 with Cincy and Houston added - as the top G-level league.

But the bottom line for me is, on the most important variable, P-status, IMO the L8 is as doomed as the Big East was.

Seeing these three conferences “ the alliance “ working together at this level, what else are they willing to do ?, mybe they stick it to the sec by breaking away from the sec and leaving the sec on an island , are we seeing espn money taking a back seat untill this alliance dose what it wants to do ?
what would the sec do if THEY were kicked to the curb, mybe they tell ok and texas no more invite, then where would ok texas go ?

(08-13-2021 08:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 08:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 08:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 08:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 07:30 PM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  https://theathletic.com/news/big-ten-pac...v1mfs4guai


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, if the "power" comes from the combined ACC/Big10/Pac12 voting block---why not include the Big12? The B12 still carries the same voting power as any other P5 for now---and its pretty likely the Big12 would be the most sympathetic of all P5 conferences to concerns of SEC dominance and poaching. Clearly not a good sign for the Big12's "power" future.

WVU must be having an 'Eerie feeling of deja-vu. It was 10 years ago next month that Pitt and Cuse left the Big East, making the Big East a Dead AQ Conference Walking. Now the same thing has happened to the Big 12.

But this time, they don't appear to have a parachute to pull the string on to prevent a crash landing.

The thing is---I actually think the Big12 is in a tremendously better position than the Big East was in that period.

For starters---they still have 8 members---all of which have either been P5 members for all---or most---of their histories. The league still largely makes geographical sense and has pretty decent replacement options (literally, in some cases--some of the exact same replacement options the Big East chose from in 2005). BYU was kicked around as a possible addition to a proposed SWC and Big8 merger in 1993. Cinci was a BE replacement choice after the first ACC raid. UCF was considered by the Big East later when TCU emerged as the better option. After 7 years of excellent ESPN exposure, program building, and a substantial investment in facilities---Houston and Memphis--both in the B12 footprint---are now excellent replacement options--each probably better than they were in 2016.

While there are situational similarities, as long as that 8 B12 team core sticks together---I would suggest to you that the Big12 rump has more reason to be optimistic about their future than the Big East could after losing Pitt and Syracuse.

No question, the L8 is in much better position. The Big East was stripped for parts down to blocks replacing wheels.

The L8 otoh, has no further value to the existing Ps, so will likely stick together. Doing so will allow it to grab schools like BYU and Houston and Cincy, which will be comparable to the existing members.

The big loser here could be the AAC, which would clearly fall behind the L8 - say L10 with Cincy and Houston added - as the top G-level league.

But the bottom line for me is, on the most important variable, P-status, IMO the L8 is as doomed as the Big East was.

I think that remains to be seen. It certainly wont be stripped prior to the end of the current CFP deal. The BE got a pass after the first raid---so, Big12 P5 status is not necessarily doomed----but its certainly on probation and under review. Regardless---I suspect their ultimate fate will lie somewhere between the current treatment of the AAC and the Big12 current residence in the P5 penthouse. Given the remaining core---hard to see the B12 being relegated to G6 status. It would likely have a far better claim to "P6" or "tweener" status than the AAC ever had.

Are they (ACC/P12) sure they’re aligning with right conference?

Their 3 Champs and a Wild Card play a 4-team playoff culminating in the Rose Bowl. Winner plays the SEC Champ. :) Sorry. Not what the alliance was about.

Where in the heck is jrsec , haven’t seen him posting much if at all...

CBS Sports reporting on this:

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...er-report/

(08-13-2021 08:41 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Their 3 Champs and a Wild Card play a 4-team playoff culminating in the Rose Bowl. Winner plays the SEC Champ. :) Sorry. Not what the alliance was about.

No but it clearly shows at the least they are very concerned

Live look at the Alliance being formed:



I just hope for the B1G's sake that the ACC and PAC haven't been pushing too many pencils.

It looks like this alliance is saying hell no to a 32 team mini nfl league concept and if so i guess espn and the sec have failed and is already a dumpster fire, DOA...

An alliance for what?

B1G should just cherry pick who they want and be done with it. This news sounds like they won't be moving in that direction.

The only tool they would have is to not schedule SEC teams. I'm not sure that is legal. I don't think it would be all that effective.

(08-13-2021 09:24 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  The only tool they would have is to not schedule SEC teams. I'm not sure that is legal. I don't think it would be all that effective.

42 votes to 16 votes , mybe you forgot about that tool... ?

(08-13-2021 09:24 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  The only tool they would have is to not schedule SEC teams. I'm not sure that is legal. I don't think it would be all that effective.

Agreed. That would primarily accomplish royally ticking off and punishing FSU, Clemson, Ga Tech, and Louisville.

(08-13-2021 09:24 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  The only tool they would have is to not schedule SEC teams. I'm not sure that is legal. I don't think it would be all that effective.

No, it wouldn't be effective. And yeah, group boycotts can be illegal.

I'm trying to figure out why the P3 would be interested in a voting alliance. Does the article say? What is the SEC in favor of that they're not? Maybe the the SEC has accepted the inevitable and wants to move more quickly to pay for play while the others are holding out hope that it can be prevented.

(08-13-2021 09:52 PM)chester Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 09:24 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  The only tool they would have is to not schedule SEC teams. I'm not sure that is legal. I don't think it would be all that effective.

No, it wouldn't be effective. And yeah, group boycotts can be illegal.

I'm trying to figure out why the P3 would be interested in a voting alliance. Does the article say? What is the SEC in favor of that they're not? Maybe the the SEC has accepted the inevitable and wants to move more quickly to pay for play while the others are holding out hope that it can be prevented.

Mybe the P3 “ Alliance “ don’t want to rip apart their conferences, seems logical to me
Group boycotts illegal ? , says who ?

(08-13-2021 09:56 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 09:52 PM)chester Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 09:24 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  The only tool they would have is to not schedule SEC teams. I'm not sure that is legal. I don't think it would be all that effective.

No, it wouldn't be effective. And yeah, group boycotts can be illegal.

I'm trying to figure out why the P3 would be interested in a voting alliance. Does the article say? What is the SEC in favor of that they're not? Maybe the the SEC has accepted the inevitable and wants to move more quickly to pay for play while the others are holding out hope that it can be prevented.

Mybe the P3 “ Alliance “ don’t want to rip apart their conferences, seems logical to me
Group boycotts illegal ? , says who ?

The block will probably insure the CFP goes through. The SEC will be on an island scheduling wise and beating up on each other. In the meantime everyone else can force SEC schools to play at their place or have a lot easier path to the CFP. Just thinking out loud.

(08-13-2021 09:56 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 09:52 PM)chester Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 09:24 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  The only tool they would have is to not schedule SEC teams. I'm not sure that is legal. I don't think it would be all that effective.

No, it wouldn't be effective. And yeah, group boycotts can be illegal.

I'm trying to figure out why the P3 would be interested in a voting alliance. Does the article say? What is the SEC in favor of that they're not? Maybe the the SEC has accepted the inevitable and wants to move more quickly to pay for play while the others are holding out hope that it can be prevented.

Mybe the P3 “ Alliance “ don’t want to rip apart their conferences, seems logical to me
Group boycotts illegal ? , says who ?

The Sherman Act. But it would be up to the Courts as to whether or not it applies here. It's moot, though, since a boycott won't happen.
.
.
Just remembered this:

Quote:"I don’t think we have multiple years to figure this out,” Sankey said. “I didn’t take anything away from the Supreme Court’s commentary in the Alston decision that suggests we have a few years to figure out a new approach.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/15/sport...court.html