ACC+PAC+B1G = 40

That beats anything the SEC could cook up with B12 unless B12 expands to 16 -

if they were to conjur something up like that

You have 40 vs 40 - and all B1G would need to do is invite KU and ISU and they win

(08-23-2021 05:19 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  ACC+PAC+B1G = 40

That beats anything the SEC could cook up with B12 unless B12 expands to 16 -

if they were to conjur something up like that

You have 40 vs 40 - and all B1G would need to do is invite KU and ISU and they win

TCU won't be voting with UT on anything - take my word for it...

If the SEC wants to really make things difficult for some then call the ACC and ask them to drop their alliance with the others and join theirs. This would give them the majority in voting, and most likely the OOC scheduling to help each other once conference play moves to 10 games and just two OOC games played against a P4 school.

I would not necessarily assume the interaction between the "Alliance" and the SEC will be strongly adversarial and combative. The Alliance having a scheduling agreement among themselves seems more "protective" rather than some lame and silly effort to punish the SEC for expanding with Texas and Oklahoma. The SEC has plenty of conference content and available OOC scheduling content beyond what is deemed satisfactory. Furthermore, in each of those three Alliance conferences, perspectives on NIL and pay-the-players could vary immensely, some of which could be in-line with what most members of the SEC may prefer.
As to the ACC, there are those four yearly in-state rivalry games with the SEC. Others play sometimes such as Vandy and Wake Forest and SC vs UNC or NCSU in Charlotte. In recent times, Tennessee and Virginia Tech, for example, have played in Bristol. With ESPN being the prime media carrier for both conferences, it is absurd to believe the ACC would sever established connections with the SEC in favor of the BIG, which the ACC is already suspicious of, and the PAC, which dwells on the other end of the country.

I think the Alliance is absolutely a reaction to the SEC. I think the SEC wants to basically turn into a semi-pro league. No scholarship limits, no graduation requirements, basically no rules. I still think most of the Big 10, Pac 12 and ACC want to hold on to some semblance of order.

(08-23-2021 08:10 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  I think the Alliance is absolutely a reaction to the SEC. I think the SEC wants to basically turn into a semi-pro league. No scholarship limits, no graduation requirements, basically no rules. I still think most of the Big 10, Pac 12 and ACC want to hold on to some semblance of order.

If the SEC truly wants that kind of autonomy, I’m out. Seriously, that would be ridiculous. SEC has some AAU schools and can’t just drop their standards across the board.

(08-23-2021 05:19 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  ACC+PAC+B1G = 40

That beats anything the SEC could cook up with B12 unless B12 expands to 16 -

if they were to conjur something up like that

You have 40 vs 40 - and all B1G would need to do is invite KU and ISU and they win

Food for thought: I read somewhere that 60% of the 65 schools would constitute a majority for voting on autonomy issues, presumably like the CFB. Notwithstanding the ACC’s role if the inchoate “Alliance,” if you take the SEC and ACC, completely controlled by ESPN, that gives you 30. I also doubt ND votes against the ACC, so that’s 31. You then add in the new Big 8 and you get 39, the exact number for a A5 majority.

(08-23-2021 07:30 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I would not necessarily assume the interaction between the "Alliance" and the SEC will be strongly adversarial and combative.

Quite! It may come natural for fans of college sports to look at things like a win-lose game, but the total media value of the different conferences can increase or decrease.

Not all moves in the college sports business are win-lose. Some moves in the college sports business can be win-win, some moves can be lose-lose.

Quote: The Alliance having a scheduling agreement among themselves seems more "protective" rather than some lame and silly effort to punish the SEC for expanding with Texas and Oklahoma.

Even more, the SEC has increased its total media value. In business, a natural reaction is to look to see if there is a way that you can add media value.

There are limitations and natural incentives in place in individual schools scheduling OOC games which result in OOC game schedules that leave some potential media value on the table. It is quite reasonable to suppose that the schools of a group of conferences putting one OOC game per school into a pot could create an OOC scheduling system which creates a set of games with more value.

They also likely have other areas of common interest, and if they can come up with a governance structure that they will entrust with one OOC game per school, the same governance structure can be used for those other areas of common interest.

But this is extremely unlikely to be the start of forming a league composed of the three conferences ... they are going to be careful to only hand things over to the Alliance where the prospective benefits of working together outweigh the risks of giving up full conference control.

Quote: The SEC has plenty of conference content and available OOC scheduling content beyond what is deemed satisfactory. ...

And the SEC is highly likely to have plenty of P4 OOC games available to it once the Alliance gets rolling. The game of denying yourself visits from SEC schools to deny SEC schools visits from your schools is one of those lose-lose games.

Or per the computer from War Games: Joshua: "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play"

(08-23-2021 08:25 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(08-23-2021 05:19 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  ACC+PAC+B1G = 40

That beats anything the SEC could cook up with B12 unless B12 expands to 16 -

if they were to conjur something up like that

You have 40 vs 40 - and all B1G would need to do is invite KU and ISU and they win

Food for thought: I read somewhere that 60% of the 65 schools would constitute a majority for voting on autonomy issues, presumably like the CFB. Notwithstanding the ACC’s role if the inchoate “Alliance,” if you take the SEC and ACC, completely controlled by ESPN, that gives you 30. I also doubt ND votes against the ACC, so that’s 31. You then add in the new Big 8 and you get 39, the exact number for a A5 majority.

There are 80 votes total in the Autonomy model - The P5+ND, and 15 students who each have a vote. From the NCAA bylaws on autonomy:

"New rules can be approved either by 60 percent of the 65 power schools and 15 player representatives (48 votes) and three of the power conferences or by 51 percent of the 65 power schools and 15 player representatives (41 votes) and four of the power conferences.

The votes of the players and the schools are counted together in the same group.”

I did a cursory search to see who the current student members are, since... presumably... they would align their votes with their schools, but couldn't find them.

(08-23-2021 07:30 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I would not necessarily assume the interaction between the "Alliance" and the SEC will be strongly adversarial and combative. The Alliance having a scheduling agreement among themselves seems more "protective" rather than some lame and silly effort to punish the SEC for expanding with Texas and Oklahoma. The SEC has plenty of conference content and available OOC scheduling content beyond what is deemed satisfactory. Furthermore, in each of those three Alliance conferences, perspectives on NIL and pay-the-players could vary immensely, some of which could be in-line with what most members of the SEC may prefer.
As to the ACC, there are those four yearly in-state rivalry games with the SEC. Others play sometimes such as Vandy and Wake Forest and SC vs UNC or NCSU in Charlotte. In recent times, Tennessee and Virginia Tech, for example, have played in Bristol. With ESPN being the prime media carrier for both conferences, it is absurd to believe the ACC would sever established connections with the SEC in favor of the BIG, which the ACC is already suspicious of, and the PAC, which dwells on the other end of the country.

Relative to scheduling games, completely agree that the ACC has an interest in making sure that the interaction between the Alliance and the SEC does not get combative nor adversarial. The ACC and SEC have strong competitive rivalries and a great history of mutually beneficial collaboration. Rumors of boycotts make no sense. More likely, scheduling games with the B1G and PAC will enhance the ACC media content (probably not as well as how the SEC enhanced its content by expanding with UT and OU…but you do what you can).

Relative to providing leadership on A5 governance issues, the Alliance and SEC will be at odds. With the NCAA losing lots of influence, there is a power vacuum that needs to be filled. By expanding with UT and OU, Sankey and the SEC will separate themselves financially from the rest of the A5. IMO, the Alliance needs to address how to ensure that financial prowess doesn’t become the primary source of a permanent competitive advantage nor the end of high-level collegiate student-athletics.