I think this proposed alliance is more about a voting bloc than future scheduling. The upcoming 12 team playoff format is the prime concern. I think that it will be created but with the caveat that no conference can get more than three teams in it. There is no way the rest of the P5 will allow the SEC or any conference to get the lion’s share of the playoff pool.

IMO, the Alliance is not about anti-SEC scheduling. The Alliance would be helpful if it just improves scheduling amongst the brand programs in the B1G, ACC and PAC.

With UT and OU joining the SEC, and the SEC likely increasing the number of conference games, the brand programs outside the SEC need to ensure that they will have marquee event games. The ACC was hurt financially last year when the SEC cancelled the in-state rivalry games (fortunately, ND joining the conference during COVID helped compensate for lost
ACC media content).

Every conference wants more revenue, the Alliance could just be replication of the SEC’s plan to enhance content games by brand programs.

(08-17-2021 09:35 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 06:45 AM)goofus Wrote:  To me, a scheduling alliance would make more sense if it involved saving the power conference status of the R8. If the ACC, Big Ten, and PAC committed to playing 32 games, lets say 11, 11, and 10 games, respectively, against the R8, then the R8 might still be considered a power conference.

The question, of course, is why would they do that? And if they were to do that much, why not just split up the R8 and invite them as permanent members. Maybe they could even get the SEC involved and have each conference invite 2 more members, if it means finishing off the Big 12 once and for all.

SEC takes OkSt and TT
ACC takes WV and Baylor
Big Ten takes ISU and TCU
PAC takes Kan and KSU

But again the question would be why? Neither saving the R8 or finishing off the B12 seem worth it to the potential alliance. Odds are they will do nothing to save or finish off the B12.

Because ESPN would like to not have to pay the B12 the remaining contract money, but they also dont want the AAC to get raided.

So it appears that ESPN is fine with the R8 getting absorbed by other P5 conferences. ESPN was perfectly fine with the R8 getting absorbed by the AAC. ESPN seems to be ok with the R8 making a scheduling agreement with the PAC/B1g, and ACC.

What ESPN seems to not want to happen is for the R8 to take 4 AAC schools.

So how does that “save” ESPN money? If the parts of the Big12 end up in power conferences, ESPN will end up paying 30 million or more each for those same 8 schools for decades to come. Adding those 8 to any power conference does not increase the number of 4 million viewer games in any power conference because none of the 8 remaining B12 teams are tent pole programs.

On the other hand—-If the 8 remaining teams stay where they are, in 4 years ESPN will be paying them HALF what they pay them now and WILL actually realize a long term sustained monetary savings.

lol the Alliance should just have their own playoff. It's clear the SEC is the Premier level of college football. The Alliance is a nice division2 and the G5 is division3.

We can have the SEC playoff and the winner is the National Champion.

We can have the Alliance playoff and the winner is the Alliance League Champion

We can have a G5 playoff and the winner is the G5 League Champion.

SEC should probably move to a 32-team NFL type model.

(08-17-2021 09:48 AM)RutgersMike Wrote:  I think this proposed alliance is more about a voting bloc than future scheduling. The upcoming 12 team playoff format is the prime concern. I think that it will be created but with the caveat that no conference can get more than three teams in it. There is no way the rest of the P5 will allow the SEC or any conference to get the lion’s share of the playoff pool.

Here's the thing: the Big Ten does NOT want this.

Two things many people are still forgetting in all of the hysteria:

(1) The Big Ten is paying out more money to its members than the SEC and will be adding to that amount with new TV contracts to be finalized over the next year.

(2) The Big Ten (*not* the SEC) would have received the most playoff spots if the 12-team playoff system had been in place during the CFP era.

I've stated elsewhere that I believe that the SEC expansion has no answer by the other leagues: adding UT and OU is the single greatest conference realignment heist in history. It's a checkmate move for conference realignment.

However, the Big Ten isn't some shrinking violet. The Big Ten may still end up making more money than the SEC even *with* UT/OU and they're just as interested in maximizing playoff spots, too.

Just because the 12-team playoff is good (or even great) for the SEC doesn't mean that it's bad for anyone else. Frankly, the worst thing for everyone else outside of the SEC is to stay in the 4-team playoff system at this point. The SEC grabbing 2 out of the 4 playoff spots in the current system (something that is at much more risk of occurring with their newly expanded league) is waaaay more damaging to the other P5 leagues than the SEC grabbing 4 or even 5 at-large spots in the 12-team playoff system.

(08-17-2021 10:44 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 09:48 AM)RutgersMike Wrote:  I think this proposed alliance is more about a voting bloc than future scheduling. The upcoming 12 team playoff format is the prime concern. I think that it will be created but with the caveat that no conference can get more than three teams in it. There is no way the rest of the P5 will allow the SEC or any conference to get the lion’s share of the playoff pool.

Here's the thing: the Big Ten does NOT want this.

Two things many people are still forgetting in all of the hysteria:

(1) The Big Ten is paying out more money to its members than the SEC and will be adding to that amount with new TV contracts to be finalized over the next year.

(2) The Big Ten (*not* the SEC) would have received the most playoff spots if the 12-team playoff system had been in place during the CFP era.

I've stated elsewhere that I believe that the SEC expansion has no answer by the other leagues: adding UT and OU is the single greatest conference realignment heist in history. It's a checkmate move for conference realignment.

However, the Big Ten isn't some shrinking violet. The Big Ten may still end up making more money than the SEC even *with* UT/OU and they're just as interested in maximizing playoff spots, too.

Just because the 12-team playoff is good (or even great) for the SEC doesn't mean that it's bad for anyone else. Frankly, the worst thing for everyone else outside of the SEC is to stay in the 4-team playoff system at this point. The SEC grabbing 2 out of the 4 playoff spots in the current system (something that is at much more risk of occurring with their newly expanded league) is waaaay more damaging to the other P5 leagues than the SEC grabbing 4 or even 5 at-large spots in the 12-team playoff system.

I agree with all of this. The B1G may have common interests with the PAC and ACC in some areas, but not in the area of limiting the number of playoff teams. The B1G routinely places 3-4 teams in the top 12, they would be doing the PAC and ACC a great boon while harming themselves.

OU and TX does not change that calculus for the B1G, because whether OU is in the Big 12 or SEC, it has been routinely taking one of those playoff spots all along - sometimes possibly to the exclusion of a B1G team, which in an expanded playoff with no limits would be far less likely to happen.

(08-17-2021 10:43 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  lol the Alliance should just have their own playoff. It's clear the SEC is the Premier level of college football. The Alliance is a nice division2 and the G5 is division3.

We can have the SEC playoff and the winner is the National Champion.

We can have the Alliance playoff and the winner is the Alliance League Champion

We can have a G5 playoff and the winner is the G5 League Champion.

SEC should probably move to a 32-team NFL type model.

More SEC Fanboy Fantasy.

(08-17-2021 10:44 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  However, the Big Ten isn't some shrinking violet. The Big Ten may still end up making more money than the SEC even *with* UT/OU and they're just as interested in maximizing playoff spots, too.

If the Big Ten gets more in their next media contracts than the SEC + UT/OU, I never want to hear another bad word about Kevin Warren again. I'm as big of a Big 10 guy as there is on this board and not even I believe the Big 10 is worth more than the SEC + UT/OU. I'm not saying we're the ACC or Pac 12, but the SEC got us good.

(08-17-2021 10:43 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  lol the Alliance should just have their own playoff. It's clear the SEC is the Premier level of college football. The Alliance is a nice division2 and the G5 is division3.

We can have the SEC playoff and the winner is the National Champion.

We can have the Alliance playoff and the winner is the Alliance League Champion

We can have a G5 playoff and the winner is the G5 League Champion.

SEC should probably move to a 32-team NFL type model.

I don't think we're too far away from the 'expanded' CFP that involves only the SEC and the B1G-PAC-ACC alliance - with a separate G6 championship structure.

The expanded CFP could look something like this:

QUARTERFINALS
SUGAR Bowl: SEC West v. SEC at large
PEACH Bowl: SEC East v. SEC at large

ROSE Bowl: B1G v. PAC
ORANGE Bowl: ACC v. B1G/PAC/ACC at large

SEMIFINALS
SEC v. SEC
B1G/PAC/ACC v. B1G/PAC/ACC

CHAMPIONSHIP
SEC v. B1G/PAC/ACC

(08-17-2021 12:20 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 10:43 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  lol the Alliance should just have their own playoff. It's clear the SEC is the Premier level of college football. The Alliance is a nice division2 and the G5 is division3.

We can have the SEC playoff and the winner is the National Champion.

We can have the Alliance playoff and the winner is the Alliance League Champion

We can have a G5 playoff and the winner is the G5 League Champion.

SEC should probably move to a 32-team NFL type model.

I don't think we're too far away from the 'expanded' CFP that involves only the SEC and the B1G-PAC-ACC alliance - with a separate G6 championship structure.

The expanded CFP could look something like this:

QUARTERFINALS
SUGAR Bowl: SEC West v. SEC at large
PEACH Bowl: SEC East v. SEC at large

ROSE Bowl: B1G v. PAC
ORANGE Bowl: ACC v. B1G/PAC/ACC at large

SEMIFINALS
SEC v. SEC
B1G/PAC/ACC v. B1G/PAC/ACC

CHAMPIONSHIP
SEC v. B1G/PAC/ACC

Man, I hope not. My sense has always been that as much as people preach about a super league---in the end---the G5 still brings 20-25% of the total college football viewing audience to the table. No network is interested in a concept that might reduce the total loyal viewing audience by as much as 20-25%. The NCAA Tournament shows us that a big tent works better and is VERY effective in bringing in even the most casual fans. Everything doesnt have to be Bama vs Clemson or Ohio St vs USC for the casual fan to be interested. No doubt--those brands bring the most to the table---but I question the value for the networks in cutting off the other 25% of the table.

(08-17-2021 12:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:20 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 10:43 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  lol the Alliance should just have their own playoff. It's clear the SEC is the Premier level of college football. The Alliance is a nice division2 and the G5 is division3.

We can have the SEC playoff and the winner is the National Champion.

We can have the Alliance playoff and the winner is the Alliance League Champion

We can have a G5 playoff and the winner is the G5 League Champion.

SEC should probably move to a 32-team NFL type model.

I don't think we're too far away from the 'expanded' CFP that involves only the SEC and the B1G-PAC-ACC alliance - with a separate G6 championship structure.

The expanded CFP could look something like this:

QUARTERFINALS
SUGAR Bowl: SEC West v. SEC at large
PEACH Bowl: SEC East v. SEC at large

ROSE Bowl: B1G v. PAC
ORANGE Bowl: ACC v. B1G/PAC/ACC at large

SEMIFINALS
SEC v. SEC
B1G/PAC/ACC v. B1G/PAC/ACC

CHAMPIONSHIP
SEC v. B1G/PAC/ACC

Man, I hope not. My sense has always been that as much as people preach about a super league---in the end---the G5 still brings 20-25% of the total college football viewing audience to the table. No network is interested in a concept that might reduce the total loyal viewing audience by as much as 20-25%. The NCAA Tournament shows us that a big tent works better and is VERY effective in bringing in even the most casual fans. Everything doesnt have to be Bama vs Clemson or Ohio St vs USC for the casual fan to be interested. No doubt--those brands bring the most to the table---but I question the value for the networks in cutting off the other 25% of the table.

100% Agree.

Half the fun and interest in the NCAA tournament is picking the brackets, watching the early rounds, cheering for UMBC or FGCU.

Out of all the P5 schools that he BigTen house I would say Penn State, Maryland and Rutgers would move if the offer is a good one, and with that said doesn’t actually have to match what their currently getting. So the question on expansion what number are these conferences going to??? Is it 16 and done or is it 18 or 20 possibly more???

The ACC should be doing anything and everything to get these schools to listen, and if ESPN wants to cripple FOX then you pull out the checkbook for the schools to be added. Let’s say the Super conferences will be 20 schools. The ACC brings in Notre Dame, Penn State, West Virginia, Maryland, Rutgers and UCF. This brings in new states added to the footprint more households added for the network, and all the additions are schools who will help out football more so than hurting the other sports.

This would give ESPN a total of 36 schools along with the SEC giving them more than enough TV material to broadcast and keep the eyeballs glued to their network. Not only would this allow them to keep games on the network, but they could have PPV games up to 5 games a week possibly more with the ACC and SEC along with crossover schedule. I think the 20 schools the ACC would have COULD put them close to the same payout with the 16 SEC schools or close enough to keep them competitive for a long time. Now we all know this isn’t happening, but it makes for some good water cooler material.

I think this alliance was built out of necessity. The other power leagues needed a way to keep the SEC and check and their combined votes give them that when it comes to making rules and building the CFP’s future.

The weak sister in this arrangement is the ACC IMHO. I think they present a risk (via Clemson and FSU) of leaking information to the SEC. There’s also the trouble of ESPN—they won’t be happy if the ACC is actively trying to curtail the revenue potential of their prize race horse, the SEC. The Mouse has ways of exerting their will on the ACC and their retribution is swift and bitter.

The SEC shill said that? Really? Shocked I am to find out the SEC guy thinks the SEC is the best and everyone is jealous and desperate to be them. I wonder if he also feels ESPN is the best network, or the Sugar Bowl is more prestigious than the Rose?


BTW, this is basically another pile of evidence for the "ESPN propaganda machine." This guy was an SEC radio host in SEC territory that the rest of the country had never heard of until ESPN got in bed with the SEC.

(08-17-2021 01:48 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  The SEC shill said that? Really? Shocked I am to find out the SEC guy thinks the SEC is the best and everyone is jealous and desperate to be them. I wonder if he also feels ESPN is the best network, or the Sugar Bowl is more prestigious than the Rose?


BTW, this is basically another pile of evidence for the "ESPN propaganda machine." This guy was an SEC radio host in SEC territory that the rest of the country had never heard of until ESPN got in bed with the SEC.

It's hard to deny in football that the SEC is the best when it has won 11 of the last 15 national championships and had a streak of 7 straight from 06-12. 2 of the biggest brands in college athletics just made a move to join and there are others who would join now if they could. Not to mention the fans in SEC territory don't care about the Rose Bowl at all.

(08-17-2021 07:06 AM)mlb Wrote:  They are limiting the number of big games the SEC can schedule out of conference. Thats the big deal about it. Prioritizing games between the other power conferences and not the SEC.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Big hairy deal! The SEC now has half of the top 10 programs and 11 of the top 20. It doesn't need OOC games against the other 3 conferences. Notre Dame has lined up SEC games. So toss another top 10 into the mix even if only for a game a season. I'm sure B.Y.U. would take some games as well.

So in conference the SEC has more top brands playing than anyone. We could play 10P games and 2 buy games in region and still have a better S.O.S. than the alliance schools.

And who gets hurt here? The SEC could get another nice bump of 3 million for playing a 10th conference game. Will the alliance play 10P games each with as high of a ranking? No.

So Finebaum's disdain has some merit.

And then the 800lb gorilla isn't the SEC, but ESPN who could choose to devalue an ACC contract that was missing the SEC rival games since they draw better numbers among the ACC's current slate of games.

I also don't see the PAC and B1G giving up a 9th conference game (especially the B1G) to schedule ACC foes not named Clemson or FSU where B1G foes would draw better ratings.

This is one of those things which sounds great in the headlines until you check out the logistics and realize it has little to no chance of making a difference. And over what? A move that might have happened 30 years ago and has been in discussion ever since? It's a histrionic reaction to the reality that no move or set of moves can catch them up in value.

So what does the SEC do? Probably nothing because there is no real threat. But if they wanted to push the matter they would breakaway from the NCAA and start their own semi-professional league, issue invitations to 8 to 16 of the top earning programs not already in the SEC and no matter whether they get them all or not, they will have established a new tier, more than doubled hoops revenue by owning it outright, and diminished everything the NCAA does and offers including the softball and baseball CWS, the men's and women's hoops tourneys, and diminished the value of football in the conferences remaining loyal to the NCAA.

And since SCOTUS has ruled on NIL and will likely rule on Stipend Caps next year, it might be argued that this league is an alternative option for enforcement of those rulings and that the natures of the old contracts had been altered in substance by those court rulings, and that the new league therefore was an alternative to amateur models the NCAA oversees, and which the courts found to be a restraint on trade. So GOR's would be moot for those seeking to join inasmuch as they were also changing the nature under which previous contracts were signed and would not be in competition with the NCAA's model, but other.

Now the alliance has to search their ranks and ponder whether the revenue of the new model might be attractive enough to lure away Notre Dame, U.S.C., Oregon, Washington, Ohio State, Penn State, Iowa, Nebraska, Florida State, Clemson, and a Miami program already using NIL to revive recruiting. Why? Because if just 1/3 of those joined with the SEC the national appeal of those left behind plummets in they eyes of the public and likely in the eyes of many alumni.

And ESPN would be looking at 100 million plus easily for the rights and if just 8 more joined maybe 120 million.

Now when the emotions cool and the AD's, commissioners, and presidents consider the potential downside, they'll shut up and acquiesce, or start that amateur only model that will drive many or all of the schools I listed into the breakaway, and likely about as many more I did not name.

And that is the reality.

And what do you hazard a guess might be the media value of those choosing the amateur model? How about how many networks would fork out big bucks to run that lineup against ESPN's breakaway super league?

This is why Finebaum calls this out! And I don't like Paul's stuff, but he's right about this.

Still say you folks in the SEC are going to to be in for a rude awakening.

(08-17-2021 01:48 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  The SEC shill said that? Really? Shocked I am to find out the SEC guy thinks the SEC is the best and everyone is jealous and desperate to be them. I wonder if he also feels ESPN is the best network, or the Sugar Bowl is more prestigious than the Rose?


BTW, this is basically another pile of evidence for the "ESPN propaganda machine." This guy was an SEC radio host in SEC territory that the rest of the country had never heard of until ESPN got in bed with the SEC.

1. This is the main board. Smack is reserved for conference boards.

2. Never liked Finebaum as he has made his living muckraking.

3. Name me any TV personality who was known to the nation before a national network put a camera in front of them and mic on their lapel? So your so called proof of an ESPN propaganda machine is a circular argument for every new anchor, analyst, talking head, or personality put on the tube. They all become famous because they are on TV, not because they earned it (though some do), but because that's all the national audience sees.

(08-17-2021 11:57 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 10:44 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  However, the Big Ten isn't some shrinking violet. The Big Ten may still end up making more money than the SEC even *with* UT/OU and they're just as interested in maximizing playoff spots, too.

If the Big Ten gets more in their next media contracts than the SEC + UT/OU, I never want to hear another bad word about Kevin Warren again. I'm as big of a Big 10 guy as there is on this board and not even I believe the Big 10 is worth more than the SEC + UT/OU. I'm not saying we're the ACC or Pac 12, but the SEC got us good.

Part of it is the legacy of Jim Delany - with the way that the BTN ownership and profit sharing works, it's a significantly more effective revenue generator for second and third tier rights than the SEC Network or ACC Network.

As a result, the Big Ten is always getting a large head start compared to the other conferences with that BTN revenue (even in an era of declining cable household numbers). When you then add on the first tier TV contracts on top of that, this is how the Big Ten continues to have the revenue lead even though the SEC has clearly been better on-the-field since essentially the start of the BCS era.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the SEC first tier contracts are larger than the Big Ten first tier contracts. In fact, I would expect that to be the case with the additions of Texas and Oklahoma. However, the difference is between the BTN and SEC Network - that's where the Big Ten has had (will continue to have) a large gap.

(08-17-2021 02:22 PM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  It's hard to deny in football that the SEC is the best when it has won 11 of the last 15 national championships and had a streak of 7 straight from 06-12. 2 of the biggest brands in college athletics just made a move to join and there are others who would join now if they could. Not to mention the fans in SEC territory don't care about the Rose Bowl at all.

Yeah, but ESPN made it so. The BCS conferences were relatively balanced until the Big Ten partnered with Fox instead of ESPN to form BTN. From then on, ESPN has been running a propaganda machine pumping up the SEC, which in turn makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The self-fulfilling prophecy is the key part. Recruits go towards the best schools, but who tells them whom the best schools are?


If you pay attention to what ESPN says and how they say it, you can identify their talking points.

If you watch college basketball this season, listen for them talking about the A-10. Someone will say "The A-10 could / should get two bids this year" or "The A-10 is a multi-bid league this year." And they'll say that with a tone that implies the EXPECTATION IS ONE BID.

The A-10 has gotten multiple bids in 33 of the last 36 tournaments and AVERAGED THREE. In 2013 and 14, the A-10 had 11 bids. Big XII had 12, Big East had 12, P12 had 11, ACC had 10, SEC had 6. But they treat us like we're JV.


And of course, it's really difficult to argue SEC dominance in football because they win all the time... but who's allowed to play?

One loss SEC teams have made the CFP 4 times and left out once.
The rest of the P5 has 12 one-loss teams in, and FIVE left out.

Why? Because the perception of the SEC is that they're so much gloriously better than everyone else.

In 2019, SEC football was 8-6 vs the MWC, CUSA, AAC and Pac-12. Doesn't exactly scream "Dominance" does it?

But pad that with 15-0 vs FCS and 9-2 vs SBC and MAC and all the sudden, they're 32-8 OOC and talking about how great they are.

Propaganda works, kids.