(08-16-2021 03:59 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  My other concern here is how this money is going to be split. Why should Oregon St or Duke get a cut of the revenue because they have a conference mate who can land a hot OOC game against another attractive program?

By that argument, why don't Ohio State and Michigan sell their annual game separately and keep all the money for themselves? Why should Rutgers or Minnesota get a cut of the revenue?

If it is for scheduling purposes, I could envision an "Alliance Game" on each ACC, B1G, and PAC schedule which will be determined 6 months in advance. 2020 taught us that scheduling "that close (and even closer)" can work.

Every season 6 PAC schools will play 6 B1G schools, 6 PAC schools will play 6 ACC schools, and 8 B1G schools will play 8 ACC schools. Create the match-ups based upon value, competitiveness, etc. Promise that no rematch will be developed by the Alliance in a given 4-year period.

(08-16-2021 04:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-16-2021 03:59 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  My other concern here is how this money is going to be split. Why should Oregon St or Duke get a cut of the revenue because they have a conference mate who can land a hot OOC game against another attractive program?

By that argument, why don't Ohio State and Michigan sell their annual game separately and keep all the money for themselves? Why should Rutgers or Minnesota get a cut of the revenue?

They should, everyone should make their own deals and sink or swim.

(08-16-2021 04:34 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  If it is for scheduling purposes, I could envision an "Alliance Game" on each ACC, B1G, and PAC schedule which will be determined 6 months in advance. 2020 taught us that scheduling "that close (and even closer)" can work.

Every season 6 PAC schools will play 6 B1G schools, 6 PAC schools will play 6 ACC schools, and 8 B1G schools will play 8 ACC schools. Create the match-ups based upon value, competitiveness, etc. Promise that no rematch will be developed by the Alliance in a given 4-year period.

Better yet, the Alliance Games could be BracketBuster type games, scheduled 2 weeks in advance. Northwestern v. Colorado and Indiana v. Georgia Tech are rather ordinary matchups if scheduled 6 months in advance...but could be 4-million viewer games if both teams are ranked....

Here's something to consider regarding a scheduling alliance.

ACC: 14 teams + ND
Big Ten: 14 teams (not 10 or 11)
PAC-12: you guessed it, 12 teams

From a scheduling standpoint, it would be beneficial if the PAC-12 had 14 teams to make it easier, but obviously, there isn't 2 teams that add value to the PAC-12. What if this alliance throws BYU a bone and provides them some games and works with ND as well. For scheduling purposes, you group the teams like this:

ACC (14 teams)
Big Ten (14 teams)
PAC-12 + ND and BYU

If you're a Big Ten team, you're playing a ACC team and either a PAC-12 team, BYU, or ND. This is the same for the ACC. A PAC-12 team get an ACC and Big Ten team.

Notre Dame would play a Big Ten team and ACC team under the scheduling alliance and rotate 3-4 other ACC teams as part of their ACC agreement (assuming all 3 conferences stay at or drop to 8 conference games + 2 alliance games; L'ville, FSU, GT, and Clem can't be apart of the 3-4 game rotation for ND as they have their in-state game leaving them with 11 games, but can still be matched up in an alliance game). Obviously ND will still schedule their 2 Cali games + Navy leaving them 3-4 games to schedule.

BYU's bone (provided they remain independent) is they get an ACC team, Big Ten team and rotate 3 PAC-12 teams not Stanford, USC, or Utah (this can be flexible, but this is based on the facts Stanford and USC are likely to remain scheduling games with ND while it's assumed BYU and Utah will schedule their rivalry annually). Obviously there will be pushback, but unless ND is excluded from this alliance completely, you will need another team to help with scheduling and BYU is probably a better option than adding a Big 12 team or other independent.

(08-16-2021 04:49 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  Here's something to consider regarding a scheduling alliance.

ACC: 14 teams + ND
Big Ten: 14 teams (not 10 or 11)
PAC-12: you guessed it, 12 teams

From a scheduling standpoint, it would be beneficial if the PAC-12 had 14 teams to make it easier, but obviously, there isn't 2 teams that add value to the PAC-12. What if this alliance throws BYU a bone and provides them some games and works with ND as well. For scheduling purposes, you group the teams like this:

ACC (14 teams)
Big Ten (14 teams)
PAC-12 + ND and BYU

If you're a Big Ten team, you're playing a ACC team and either a PAC-12 team, BYU, or ND. This is the same for the ACC. A PAC-12 team get an ACC and Big Ten team.

Notre Dame would play a Big Ten team and ACC team under the scheduling alliance and rotate 3-4 other ACC teams as part of their ACC agreement (assuming all 3 conferences stay at or drop to 8 conference games + 2 alliance games; L'ville, FSU, GT, and Clem can't be apart of the 3-4 game rotation for ND as they have their in-state game leaving them with 11 games, but can still be matched up in an alliance game). Obviously ND will still schedule their 2 Cali games + Navy leaving them 3-4 games to schedule.

BYU's bone (provided they remain independent) is they get an ACC team, Big Ten team and rotate 3 PAC-12 teams not Stanford, USC, or Utah (this can be flexible, but this is based on the facts Stanford and USC are likely to remain scheduling games with ND while it's assumed BYU and Utah will schedule their rivalry annually). Obviously there will be pushback, but unless ND is excluded from this alliance completely, you will need another team to help with scheduling and BYU is probably a better option than adding a Big 12 team or other independent.

BePcr07's set up was easier and more likely:

8 B1G schools v. 8 ACC schools
6 PAC schools v. 6 B1G schools
6 PAC schools v. 6 ACC schools

1 "Alliance" game each. The B1G, PAC and ACC schools can have their various separate OOC games with ND and BYU, as desired.

With the Alliance, if B1G teams are not allowed to schedule non-conference games, Iowa State is doubly hurt. Not only does the B12 fall to the bottom of P conferences (best case scenario), but ISU loses their biggest rival, Iowa.

All as their program is at its best point in history.

(08-16-2021 05:00 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-16-2021 04:49 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  Here's something to consider regarding a scheduling alliance.

ACC: 14 teams + ND
Big Ten: 14 teams (not 10 or 11)
PAC-12: you guessed it, 12 teams

From a scheduling standpoint, it would be beneficial if the PAC-12 had 14 teams to make it easier, but obviously, there isn't 2 teams that add value to the PAC-12. What if this alliance throws BYU a bone and provides them some games and works with ND as well. For scheduling purposes, you group the teams like this:

ACC (14 teams)
Big Ten (14 teams)
PAC-12 + ND and BYU

If you're a Big Ten team, you're playing a ACC team and either a PAC-12 team, BYU, or ND. This is the same for the ACC. A PAC-12 team get an ACC and Big Ten team.

Notre Dame would play a Big Ten team and ACC team under the scheduling alliance and rotate 3-4 other ACC teams as part of their ACC agreement (assuming all 3 conferences stay at or drop to 8 conference games + 2 alliance games; L'ville, FSU, GT, and Clem can't be apart of the 3-4 game rotation for ND as they have their in-state game leaving them with 11 games, but can still be matched up in an alliance game). Obviously ND will still schedule their 2 Cali games + Navy leaving them 3-4 games to schedule.

BYU's bone (provided they remain independent) is they get an ACC team, Big Ten team and rotate 3 PAC-12 teams not Stanford, USC, or Utah (this can be flexible, but this is based on the facts Stanford and USC are likely to remain scheduling games with ND while it's assumed BYU and Utah will schedule their rivalry annually). Obviously there will be pushback, but unless ND is excluded from this alliance completely, you will need another team to help with scheduling and BYU is probably a better option than adding a Big 12 team or other independent.

BePcr07's set up was easier and more likely:

8 B1G schools v. 8 ACC schools
6 PAC schools v. 6 B1G schools
6 PAC schools v. 6 ACC schools

1 "Alliance" game each. The B1G, PAC and ACC schools can have their various separate OOC games with ND and BYU, as desired.

Yeah, didn't see their post until after I posted mine. But in case they decide to do 2 alliance games, there's an option.

(08-16-2021 02:37 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  I'm not sure how to ascertain how many games could be scheduled between the three leagues each year with those numbers. If the goal of this just to generate top tier matchups then I could see Clemson-Ohio State, Florida State-Oregon, Penn State-Miami or SC-Michigan type matchups garnering eyeballs, but outside of the top 3-4 teams in each league playing one another (maybe with a Maryland-Virginia reunion as an exception), I don't see how a Wake Forest-Cal or GT-Purdue game is going to bring in much more money, if any. This also seems like it has the potential to devalue the Rose Bowl, to the extent that the authors of that leaked wishlist memo get any of the things they want, particularly maintaining a B1G-Pac-12 matchup in an expanded playoff.

Also, can anyone explain how many possible games there could be from this alliance in a given season, taking into account the existing OOC rivalries noted above?

Thanks

They could balance the bigger USC-Michigan games with smaller, cross-division games within the conferences, both count toward conference races so everyone within a conference plays the same 9 or 10 Alliance games.

Ideally, for the networks, these games would be selected 10 months (not 10 years) ahead of schedule, so as to target both "fair" and "exciting" Alliance matchups.

You can't take away an OOC scheduling opportunity from big-brand ADs and not from the little guys, so EVERY team will have exactly 1 flex Alliance game (ie. 20 total games each year)... even if it ends up being a cross-division game.

Because the 6 divisions will all be round-robin, you'd have to stagger the home-away patterns to allow all potential pairings.

Pac12N: HHAA
Pac12S: AAHH
ACC-A: HAHA
ACC-C: AHAH
B1G-E: HAAH
B1G-W: AHHA

This is a sample. Existing contracts will be analyzed and home-away patterns will be allocated, so as to disturb as few near-future games as possible. Current cross-division rotations can be adjusted so teams continue to have balanced home-away schedules annually.

(08-16-2021 05:18 PM)johnintx Wrote:  With the Alliance, if B1G teams are not allowed to schedule non-conference games, Iowa State is doubly hurt. Not only does the B12 fall to the bottom of P conferences (best case scenario), but ISU loses their biggest rival, Iowa.

All as their program is at its best point in history.

The Alliance can’t do that - it would be an illegal antitrust violation.

Iowa is going to still play Iowa State, which means that it might make it difficult for Iowa to participate in many (if any) Alliance games.

Illinois will be resurrecting its football series with Missouri in a few years.

Several Big Ten schools already have ND on the schedule, USC and Stanford will always play ND annually, and the ACC has 5 teams play ND per year.

There are obviously several ACC-SEC rivalries that need to be worked around in addition to the ND ACC games.

To the extent that there’s an Alliance, I think there’s going to be flexibility based on availability and whether there are non-conference matchups already in place. This won’t be like a full scale ACC-Big Ten Challenge in the way that it exists in basketball where everyone participates every year.

(08-16-2021 12:46 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  How many four million dollar club games are between two unranked teams? ESPN/Fox tend to put the games between ranked teams on their best network (or involving one highly ranked team), so it is a bit of self fulfilling prophesy when it comes to TV ratings. Yeah, there are schools that draw a few more eyeballs even when bad, but I really think if you control for rank and network, a lot of these differences become a lot less pronounced.

An earlier post pointed out that the only four million games in the B1G 12 that didn't involve UT or OU were late season games involving Baylor. The Bears had just missed out on the CFP semis in 2014, and had been ranked in the top 4 all season in 2015 until a loss to Oklahoma knocked them down to #10.

The following week Oklahoma State was ranked #4 when they hosted the Bears with the Big 12 title still very much up for grabs. The Bears won that one, moving up to #7 before losing the following week to #15 TCU. Those were the two "four million" games. They didn't attract eyeballs because of their brand. They did it because the games mattered.

The way you add more Major Conference games to the schedule is to increase the Major Conference quota. Pulling one otherwise Go5/FCS buy game out of the inventory per school is going to have a negligible impact on the value of the inventory, while creating a pool from which to create Tier1 Game of the Week games ... whether on Fox OTA or on CBS, looking for a more national appeal than their SEC GOTW.

That creates, of course, far more inventory than you need for a GOTW, and many of the options are not GOTW caliber.

But if you have a Tier 1, you can have a Tier 2, and having an option for a Tier 2 creates the opportunities to have a pool of schools (eg, half home, half away), available in a given week and form the pairings which creates the best Tier 1 game from the pool, and then down the pool.

The ACC's slice is not pooled rights, but traditional Home and Away rights, but they go to ESPN and say if ESPN pays them enough, they will also increase their quota by one and participate in the scheduling alliance, giving ESPN the home half of the games the ACC participates in.

Obviously the revenue sharing from the contract is the make or break of the system, but there's value add created, so there's more money available to be made.

Part of the conference revenue share is that everyone in each conference "gives up" a buy game to make the system function. But also, to give more slack for scheduling, the Big12 can remain qualified for those quota games.

(08-16-2021 02:37 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(08-16-2021 02:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-16-2021 01:07 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Frank,

I was thinking of a package for game of the week because the SEC got so much money on top of what they already had. The alliance would have even more compelling games by crossover and could command even more than the $300m the SEC is getting. Mind you it's split three ways, but still that's a nice chunk of change and National exposure to boot.

That's potentially a very good idea.

I'm interested as to how this would work, in terms of total number of games and potential additional media rights money. I know the B1G goes back on the market in '23, but the ACC is locked up through '36, and I honestly don't know about the PAC-12. I assume ESPN would already have control over the ACC home games that are part of this, right?

And then you get to the total number of games. Assuming the ACC stays at 8 games, you have ten schools with four OOC slots open each year, and four (Clemson, FSU, GT and Louisville) that will only have 3 open OOC slots because of annual SEC end-of-season rivals, so that would be 52 possible non-conference games a year. But then you also have to back out the 5 games against ND each year, so the ACC would have 47 potential OOC games.

Looking at the PAC-12, they'd have 34, with 3 OOC games per school, except for Stanford and USC, who also play ND annually.

The B1G would have 3 OOC games for each of its 14 schools, or 42 openings, as I don't think anyone in that league plays ND annually anymore, right?

I'm not sure how to ascertain how many games could be scheduled between the three leagues each year with those numbers. If the goal of this just to generate top tier matchups then I could see Clemson-Ohio State, Florida State-Oregon, Penn State-Miami or SC-Michigan type matchups garnering eyeballs, but outside of the top 3-4 teams in each league playing one another (maybe with a Maryland-Virginia reunion as an exception), I don't see how a Wake Forest-Cal or GT-Purdue game is going to bring in much more money, if any. This also seems like it has the potential to devalue the Rose Bowl, to the extent that the authors of that leaked wishlist memo get any of the things they want, particularly maintaining a B1G-Pac-12 matchup in an expanded playoff.

Also, can anyone explain how many possible games there could be from this alliance in a given season, taking into account the existing OOC rivalries noted above?

Thanks

You could just do a 10-15 game deal, roughly one each week. You would focus on the bigger names. The ACC got a bump because Notre Dame became a guaranteed ooc opponent 5 games a year. ESPN could give them a bump because they have 7-10 games with relatively big names in the Big 10 and Pac 12 instead of the random ooc games they have now.

If you do a 10 game deal, maybe its one game each from FSU, Miami, Clemson, UNC, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech and Pitt from the ACC; one game each from Ohio St., Penn St., Michigan, MIchigan St., Nebraska, Wisconsin and Iowa in the Big 10. And then one game each from USC, UCLA, Oregon, Stanford, Washington and Colorado in the pac 12. Having the lesser names play each other probably adds less than the lesser brands playing in conference, so you really don't need Indiana vs. Washington St. or Minnesota vs. Wake Forest.

Those games get sold separately from the rest of the package when the Big 10 and Pac 12 go up for renewal. ACC renegotiates based on that.

(08-16-2021 07:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  ... Having the lesser names play each other probably adds less than the lesser brands playing in conference, so you really don't need Indiana vs. Washington St. or Minnesota vs. Wake Forest. ...

But by the same token, if those are the participating schools and then the earnings are distributed among all conference schools, the distribution to the member schools, including the participating schools, increase if there is any payment for the Tier2 games. If the value is only 15% of the GOTW games, that's still 15% more money.

Plus it avoids the structural competitive imbalance within each conference of requiring some schools but not others to have an additional Power Conference game, or some schools but not others to have control over that additional Power Conference game.

Indeed, you could start out with six weeks of "scheduled" games, where the Tier1 and Tier2 splits would be obvious, and then start the pool games, with two schools from one conference and one each from the other two. Then three weeks in advance, the Tier1 partner can either form one pair for their OTA game, so the Tier2 partner has the other one, or do a mirror broadcast of two pairings, with the Tier2 partner getting the "out of region" one of the pairs.

I could see 1 OOC game per year for each team in the 3 conferences being required in this alliance. The venue (home and away games) has to rotate fairly. Team strength is judged after every season and conferences are tiered into competitive matchups (only top third play each other; middle third competes; bottom third competes).

Each conferences’ schedulers would need to coordinate their activities. The NFL does this form of scheduling (out of division and within the conference). Instead of scheduling OOC a decade in advance, teams have to allow their conferences to schedule 1 extra game.

IMO, the entire conference should participate in this program. It would create easier scheduling for all teams. This would result in 2 or 3 alliance games per week…ending the alliance OOC competition before the end of the year marquee in-conference or rivalry games that already get good TV ratings.

From a Clemson perspective, having seven home football games is very important. Not just because of the money that is made from tickets and concessions, but because it is a huge deal for the local businesses within town. This year is an anomaly with only six home games due to several factors, including the scheduling agreement with Notre Dame and where those games fell. Anyway, in order to have seven home games each year, Clemson has a formula of playing one in-state FCS school, one G5 school, one P5 school, and the annual game against UofSC. In years when Clemson plays UofSC in Columbia, we play a P5 at home. Then, in years when we play UofSC in Clemson, we play a P5 on the road. This means there is only one OOC game on the road each year, allowing for seven home games.

If there were to be some form of a scheduling alliance between the ACC, B1G, and PAC-12, and if we assume that Clemson does not cancel any existing, future home-and-home contracts against Georgia, LSU, or Oklahoma, then there is no way for Clemson to add a home-and-home against teams from the B1G and/or PAC-12 without sacrificing that seventh home game. So, I think there would need to be a promise of a large amount of money in order for Clemson to be on-board with losing that seventh home game.

As a season ticket holder, I, personally, would be fine with only having six home games if it meant we replaced the in-state FCS game and/or G5 game with a top half team from the B1G and/or PAC-12. However, I don't know that the local businesses that make most of their annual income on those seven weekends would agree. Now, I'm sure there is an amount of money where the university/athletic department would be good with this, but I think it would require a substantial bump.

I know that Clemson is just one school in this equation, but that's a little perspective through my orange tinted glasses.

(08-16-2021 09:36 PM)Schema Wrote:  From a Clemson perspective, having seven home football games is very important. Not just because of the money that is made from tickets and concessions, but because it is a huge deal for the local businesses within town. This year is an anomaly with only six home games due to several factors, including the scheduling agreement with Notre Dame and where those games fell. Anyway, in order to have seven home games each year, Clemson has a formula of playing one in-state FCS school, one G5 school, one P5 school, and the annual game against UofSC. In years when Clemson plays UofSC in Columbia, we play a P5 at home. Then, in years when we play UofSC in Clemson, we play a P5 on the road. This means there is only one OOC game on the road each year, allowing for seven home games.

If there were to be some form of a scheduling alliance between the ACC, B1G, and PAC-12, and if we assume that Clemson does not cancel any existing, future home-and-home contracts against Georgia, LSU, or Oklahoma, then there is no way for Clemson to add a home-and-home against teams from the B1G and/or PAC-12 without sacrificing that seventh home game. So, I think there would need to be a promise of a large amount of money in order for Clemson to be on-board with losing that seventh home game.

As a season ticket holder, I, personally, would be fine with only having six home games if it meant we replaced the in-state FCS game and/or G5 game with a top half team from the B1G and/or PAC-12. However, I don't know that the local businesses that make most of their annual income on those seven weekends would agree. Now, I'm sure there is an amount of money where the university/athletic department would be good with this, but I think it would require a substantial bump.

I know that Clemson is just one school in this equation, but that's a little perspective through my orange tinted glasses.

That’s also assuming the ACC stays at 8 conference games (they almost have to, right?). If they go to 9 ACC games and CU, GT, Louisville and FSU aren’t exempt from the “Alliance” games because their annual SEC rivalry games (which would diminish its value), y’all could end up with a 6 game home slate with just 4 ACC games, South Carolina and either a PAC-12 or B1G team, and 5 road league games plus a trip to South Bend.

(08-16-2021 09:36 PM)Schema Wrote:  From a Clemson perspective, having seven home football games is very important. ...

That is, indeed, one of the biggest trade-offs in getting this up and running. And it could well be where they think they have something worked out, get the media networks word of how much they might be willing to pay (via "media consultants", of course) and then ... it's just not enough.

Clemson / FSU can be guaranteed 7 home games if they participate in the years that they are not scheduled against Notre Dame. Then away in the alliance or else ND when they are home in their OOC rivalry game, hosting in the alliance or else ND when they are away in their OOC rivalry game, two buy games, seven home games.

It's in the Big10 and PAC-12 where creating the room for the games by increasing the Power Conference quota by one would push them to alternating between 6 and 7 home games a year.

(08-16-2021 10:12 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  That’s also assuming the ACC stays at 8 conference games (they almost have to, right?). If they go to 9 ACC games and CU, GT, Louisville and FSU aren’t exempt from the “Alliance” games because their annual SEC rivalry games (which would diminish its value), y’all could end up with a 6 game home slate with just 4 ACC games, South Carolina and either a PAC-12 or B1G team, and 5 road league games plus a trip to South Bend.

Yeah, moving to a 9-game conference schedule would also not sit well. I think it was 2012 when the ACC announced they were moving to a 9-game conference schedule. At that time, Clemson had future home-and-home contracts with Georgia, Oklahoma State, and Ole Miss. They agreed to keep the games against Georgia in 2013 and 2014, but they canceled the games against Ole Miss in 2015 and 2016 and Oklahoma State in 2019 and 2020 because it was going to take away the seventh home game in some of those seasons. Of course, the ACC later changed course and agreed to stick with an 8-game conference schedule. However, it showed how serious Clemson was about having that seventh home game. They were willing to no longer play P5 schools out of conference, with the exception of UofSC, in order to have seven games in Clemson.

What's funny to me about all the TV talk and who gets viewers...

It's not the brands. The big games get the viewers! If you have #4 taking on #7, it's going to get big ratings.

The SEC isn't on top because of their BRANDS. They're on top because the ESPN hype machine has their teams ranked higher than they probably should be, creating the better inventory that people tune in for.

You look at the games with two ranked teams playing, SEC leads by a large margin. But they lead by a large margin because Tennessee, Missouri, Auburn and Kentucky are sliding into the 17 to 25 ranked of the polls, even though they ended up being 6-5, 5-6, 5-5 and 3-7 on the season.