Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Pac-12 commissioner to decide on expansion interests by end of week
Author Message
Kit-Cat Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #41
RE: Pac-12 commissioner to decide on expansion interests by end of week
(08-26-2021 10:23 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  


Good interview. I highly recommend all expansionistas to listen in.

The most interesting comment is the "North Star" comment whereby the goal will be to have every PAC/B1G/ACC team to play 1H/1A in football against the PAC/B1G/ACC. Notre Dame's scheduling wouldn't be subject to the 1H/1A alliance provision.

The schedule model I believe will be 8 conference games and 2 alliance games for 10 games committed to in total.

ACC 14
B1G 14
PAC 12 (play ND x2)

ACC and B1G need 28 H/A games each and the PAC can only supply 22 when you factor in Stanford/USC playing in ND anyways.

If the PAC grows to 14 it can supply 26 games and if it grows to 16 it could then supply 30 games to the alliance. But what its showing is the amount the PAC can expand by is limited by what is practical for this alliance.

PAC is definitely not taking in the entire L8 at this point.
08-26-2021 11:10 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,109
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 763
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Pac-12 commissioner to decide on expansion interests by end of week
(08-26-2021 11:10 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(08-26-2021 10:23 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  


Good interview. I highly recommend all expansionistas to listen in.

The most interesting comment is the "North Star" comment whereby the goal will be to have every PAC/B1G/ACC team to play 1H/1A in football against the PAC/B1G/ACC. Notre Dame's scheduling wouldn't be subject to the 1H/1A alliance provision.

The schedule model I believe will be 8 conference games and 2 alliance games for 10 games committed to in total.

ACC 14
B1G 14
PAC 12 (play ND x2)

ACC and B1G need 28 H/A games each and the PAC can only supply 22 when you factor in Stanford/USC playing in ND anyways.

If the PAC grows to 14 it can supply 26 games and if it grows to 16 it could then supply 30 games to the alliance. But what its showing is the amount the PAC can expand by is limited by what is practical for this alliance.

PAC is definitely not taking in the entire L8 at this point.

The Big Ten doesn't need 28 from each of the ACC and PAC12, it needs 28 from the ACC and PAC12 taken together. The pair have 40 to give.

Ditto the ACC needing 28 and their partners having 40 to give.

The PAC12 needs, on you calculus, 22 and their partners have 48 to give.

In other words ... the PAC12 can play 11 Big Ten games and 11 ACC. So the Big Ten needs 13 from the ACC and the ACC needs 13 from the Big Ten. No problem. No need to cut back conference distribution per school to add two schools just to make the numbers.

A two conference scheduling agreement need equal sized conferences. A three conference scheduling agreement doesn't.
(This post was last modified: 08-26-2021 11:58 AM by BruceMcF.)
08-26-2021 11:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,722
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1775
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #43
RE: Pac-12 commissioner to decide on expansion interests by end of week
Yes, thanks for posting that interview. The Pac-12 commissioner is actually pretty straight-forward in his answers compared to a lot of other college leaders, which is much appreciated. I hope that being around academia doesn't beat that out of him!

The North Star seems *really* tough if they're talking about 2 Alliance games per year. I think it will be hard enough to get everyone to have 1 Alliance game per year (especially when Notre Dame football games aren't considered to be Alliance games and the ACC isn't realistically giving up its SEC rivalries). Now, maybe this means virtually *all* cupcake games go away and schools are playing 11 or 12 P5 (P4?) games per year, which is fine with me in terms of being a fan and I'm sure the TV networks would love it. The answer to juicing TV revenue would definitely lean toward getting rid of those non-conference cupcakes (NOT reducing the conference schedule), although that likely means giving up a home game every year or 2 for the biggest schools (which is a big hurdle).
(This post was last modified: 08-26-2021 11:57 AM by Frank the Tank.)
08-26-2021 11:56 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dbackjon Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,010
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 657
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
Post: #44
RE: Pac-12 commissioner to decide on expansion interests by end of week
(08-25-2021 07:10 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  To me, the P5 needs to neuter AAC, MWC, MVFC and SBC. Those conferences have been better than a lot of P5 schools recently.

03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao on your last two
08-26-2021 11:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dbackjon Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,010
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 657
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
Post: #45
RE: Pac-12 commissioner to decide on expansion interests by end of week
(08-25-2021 11:48 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  
(08-25-2021 11:32 AM)Bogg Wrote:  
(08-25-2021 11:13 AM)superdeluxe Wrote:  I know the other 4 members of the pac-12 would be uspet losing california.

I do wonder how much losing California would be offset by "gaining" Texas, in the event Tech and TCU were added. Genuine question.

I would think opinions would vary, but the against would be the larger contingent.

Probably not a big facotr, but it is interesting that for Colorado, all four of those additions would all be closer than any PAC-12 school except UTah, with Lawrence and Lubbock being about the same travel time as Utah.

ALso, unrelated random fact looking at google maps... Lubbock is a shorter drive to LA than LA to Seattle...

Now do regularly scheduled flight times for Olympic Sports...
08-26-2021 12:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 50,019
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2374
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #46
RE: Pac-12 commissioner to decide on expansion interests by end of week
(08-26-2021 11:56 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yes, thanks for posting that interview. The Pac-12 commissioner is actually pretty straight-forward in his answers compared to a lot of other college leaders, which is much appreciated. I hope that being around academia doesn't beat that out of him!

The North Star seems *really* tough if they're talking about 2 Alliance games per year. I think it will be hard enough to get everyone to have 1 Alliance game per year (especially when Notre Dame football games aren't considered to be Alliance games and the ACC isn't realistically giving up its SEC rivalries). Now, maybe this means virtually *all* cupcake games go away and schools are playing 11 or 12 P5 (P4?) games per year, which is fine with me in terms of being a fan and I'm sure the TV networks would love it. The answer to juicing TV revenue would definitely lean toward getting rid of those non-conference cupcakes (NOT reducing the conference schedule), although that likely means giving up a home game every year or 2 for the biggest schools (which is a big hurdle).

I think the Alliance is in a tough spot, particularly if it is to meet the goal of the PAC and ACC spokes, who are concerned about boosting TV revenue via some more valuable home games.

There isn't a lot of wiggle room for them, IMO. As you say, tradeoffs involving home games are tough for the biggest brands in particular, the Michigans and Ohio States and Penn States, guard those with their lives as they make so much money off of them.

Also, while everyone - well some, like Nick Saban - talk a big game about playing nobody but P5 opposition, there's a reason OOC cupcakes exist. They provide more home games, and they boost the record of the P5 team. Which, whether they admit it or not, even fans of those P5 teams like.
(This post was last modified: 08-26-2021 12:06 PM by quo vadis.)
08-26-2021 12:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #47
RE: Pac-12 commissioner to decide on expansion interests by end of week
(08-26-2021 11:56 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yes, thanks for posting that interview. The Pac-12 commissioner is actually pretty straight-forward in his answers compared to a lot of other college leaders, which is much appreciated. I hope that being around academia doesn't beat that out of him!

The North Star seems *really* tough if they're talking about 2 Alliance games per year. I think it will be hard enough to get everyone to have 1 Alliance game per year (especially when Notre Dame football games aren't considered to be Alliance games and the ACC isn't realistically giving up its SEC rivalries). Now, maybe this means virtually *all* cupcake games go away and schools are playing 11 or 12 P5 (P4?) games per year, which is fine with me in terms of being a fan and I'm sure the TV networks would love it. The answer to juicing TV revenue would definitely lean toward getting rid of those non-conference cupcakes (NOT reducing the conference schedule), although that likely means giving up a home game every year or 2 for the biggest schools (which is a big hurdle).

The cupcakes are going to have to go though I'm not sure how this scheduling mandate will be that different than current in actuality in terms of overall P5 games played by members in the PAC/B1G/ACC.

Its not like they are just adding 2 P5 games to the schedule. They are moving from 1.75 P5 games to a 2 or 2.25 P5 game average. At the expense of cupcakes of course.
08-26-2021 12:04 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jared7 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 436
Joined: Apr 2019
Reputation: 69
I Root For: TCU
Location:
Post: #48
RE: Pac-12 commissioner to decide on expansion interests by end of week
(08-26-2021 11:56 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yes, thanks for posting that interview. The Pac-12 commissioner is actually pretty straight-forward in his answers compared to a lot of other college leaders, which is much appreciated. I hope that being around academia doesn't beat that out of him!

The North Star seems *really* tough if they're talking about 2 Alliance games per year. I think it will be hard enough to get everyone to have 1 Alliance game per year (especially when Notre Dame football games aren't considered to be Alliance games and the ACC isn't realistically giving up its SEC rivalries). Now, maybe this means virtually *all* cupcake games go away and schools are playing 11 or 12 P5 (P4?) games per year, which is fine with me in terms of being a fan and I'm sure the TV networks would love it. The answer to juicing TV revenue would definitely lean toward getting rid of those non-conference cupcakes (NOT reducing the conference schedule), although that likely means giving up a home game every year or 2 for the biggest schools (which is a big hurdle).
Oh, he'll soon learn to give vaguer answers.

I'll just throw this in - TCU is currently scheduled through 2033 with its OOC games. And that list includes Cal, Colorado, Stanford, Purdue, UNC and Duke. All Alliance members. My guess is that our games are going to end up counting towards their numbers. I don't expect cancellations and buy-outs from schools looking to enhance revenues.
08-26-2021 12:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dbackjon Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,010
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 657
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
Post: #49
RE: Pac-12 commissioner to decide on expansion interests by end of week
(08-25-2021 02:10 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  I would laugh if Kliavkoff got in front of the mic and said, " We are currently studying the idea of expansion candidates and we'll give offers to potential schools, if and when UT and OU leave to the SEC." and then walks out......

No idea who or how many schools, plus drop that tiny seed of doubt that UT and OU could back out of leaving the BigXII. This obviously would never happen but the comedic value of watching every contributor here and other sites as well as the national writers lose their minds would be most excellent.

We've extended an offer to OU, UT, LSU and Alabama
08-26-2021 12:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #50
RE: Pac-12 commissioner to decide on expansion interests by end of week
(08-26-2021 12:04 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  
(08-26-2021 11:56 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yes, thanks for posting that interview. The Pac-12 commissioner is actually pretty straight-forward in his answers compared to a lot of other college leaders, which is much appreciated. I hope that being around academia doesn't beat that out of him!

The North Star seems *really* tough if they're talking about 2 Alliance games per year. I think it will be hard enough to get everyone to have 1 Alliance game per year (especially when Notre Dame football games aren't considered to be Alliance games and the ACC isn't realistically giving up its SEC rivalries). Now, maybe this means virtually *all* cupcake games go away and schools are playing 11 or 12 P5 (P4?) games per year, which is fine with me in terms of being a fan and I'm sure the TV networks would love it. The answer to juicing TV revenue would definitely lean toward getting rid of those non-conference cupcakes (NOT reducing the conference schedule), although that likely means giving up a home game every year or 2 for the biggest schools (which is a big hurdle).
Oh, he'll soon learn to give vaguer answers.

I'll just throw this in - TCU is currently scheduled through 2033 with its OOC games. And that list includes Cal, Colorado, Stanford, Purdue, UNC and Duke. All Alliance members. My guess is that our games are going to end up counting towards their numbers. I don't expect cancellations and buy-outs from schools looking to enhance revenues.

PAC commish said it will be a soft landing toward the North Star goal because of contracts out into the 2030's.
08-26-2021 12:08 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #51
RE: Pac-12 commissioner to decide on expansion interests by end of week
(08-26-2021 11:56 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(08-26-2021 11:10 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(08-26-2021 10:23 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  


Good interview. I highly recommend all expansionistas to listen in.

The most interesting comment is the "North Star" comment whereby the goal will be to have every PAC/B1G/ACC team to play 1H/1A in football against the PAC/B1G/ACC. Notre Dame's scheduling wouldn't be subject to the 1H/1A alliance provision.

The schedule model I believe will be 8 conference games and 2 alliance games for 10 games committed to in total.

ACC 14
B1G 14
PAC 12 (play ND x2)

ACC and B1G need 28 H/A games each and the PAC can only supply 22 when you factor in Stanford/USC playing in ND anyways.

If the PAC grows to 14 it can supply 26 games and if it grows to 16 it could then supply 30 games to the alliance. But what its showing is the amount the PAC can expand by is limited by what is practical for this alliance.

PAC is definitely not taking in the entire L8 at this point.

The Big Ten doesn't need 28 from each of the ACC and PAC12, it needs 28 from the ACC and PAC12 taken together. The pair have 40 to give.

Ditto the ACC needing 28 and their partners having 40 to give.

The PAC12 needs, on you calculus, 22 and their partners have 48 to give.

In other words ... the PAC12 can play 11 Big Ten games and 11 ACC. So the Big Ten needs 13 from the ACC and the ACC needs 13 from the Big Ten. No problem. No need to cut back conference distribution per school to add two schools just to make the numbers.

A two conference scheduling agreement need equal sized conferences. A three conference scheduling agreement doesn't.

B1G needs 28 (ACC/PAC have 52 to give 28+24)
AAC needs 28 (B1G/PAC have 52 to give)
PAC needs 24 (B1G/PAC have 56 to give)

If the B1G gets half each from the PAC and AAC that means only 26 of 28 are filled.

PAC could grab TCU/SMU to get the alliance into DFW. Small schools for Duke and Northwestern to play.
08-26-2021 12:17 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,722
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1775
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #52
RE: Pac-12 commissioner to decide on expansion interests by end of week
(08-26-2021 12:04 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(08-26-2021 11:56 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yes, thanks for posting that interview. The Pac-12 commissioner is actually pretty straight-forward in his answers compared to a lot of other college leaders, which is much appreciated. I hope that being around academia doesn't beat that out of him!

The North Star seems *really* tough if they're talking about 2 Alliance games per year. I think it will be hard enough to get everyone to have 1 Alliance game per year (especially when Notre Dame football games aren't considered to be Alliance games and the ACC isn't realistically giving up its SEC rivalries). Now, maybe this means virtually *all* cupcake games go away and schools are playing 11 or 12 P5 (P4?) games per year, which is fine with me in terms of being a fan and I'm sure the TV networks would love it. The answer to juicing TV revenue would definitely lean toward getting rid of those non-conference cupcakes (NOT reducing the conference schedule), although that likely means giving up a home game every year or 2 for the biggest schools (which is a big hurdle).

The cupcakes are going to have to go though I'm not sure how this scheduling mandate will be that different than current in actuality in terms of overall P5 games played by members in the PAC/B1G/ACC.

Its not like they are just adding 2 P5 games to the schedule. They are moving from 1.75 P5 games to a 2 or 2.25 P5 game average. At the expense of cupcakes of course.

Well, the last sentence is what I'm curious about if it's really at the expense of cupcakes or that means reducing the conference schedule (in the case of the Pac-12 and Big Ten) to 8 games. Note the SEC is almost certainly going up to 9 conference games and they've even considered 10.

The Pac-12 commissioner (with his candor) is pretty clearly stating that if the Alliance games are going to come online any time in the near future, the Pac-12 will need to go to an 8-game conference schedule. That certainly might be fine for the Pac-12 since that will juice their TV revenue, but the Big Ten is in a different position. The value of their own conference games is simply MUCH higher by comparison. The Big Ten has more depth in terms of marquee names (Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin and, at least historically if not currently, Nebraska), their "middle tier" brands would be upper tier brands in either the Pac-12 or ACC (e.g. Michigan State, Iowa), and even their least valuable football programs are generally huge market schools (e.g. Northwestern, Illinois, Rutgers, Maryland).

Obviously, the Michigan/Ohio State vs. USC/Clemson matchups all make sense to try to set up. What's different is once you get beyond that where the average value for each Big Ten conference game is so much higher than the Pac-12 or ACC, which means that trading one of those out for a non-conference game (and only get the TV rights to 50% of the time as opposed to 100% of the time, to boot) isn't a great financial trade-off to the Big Ten.

Now, maybe I'm being too pessimistic and the real trade-off here is that Alliance games are replacing early-season G5 and FCS payday matchups, in which case there's a ton of TV value for the Big Ten there (but once again, not great in terms of ticket revenue for the biggest schools if they have to give up home games).
(This post was last modified: 08-26-2021 12:21 PM by Frank the Tank.)
08-26-2021 12:19 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
solohawks Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 20,784
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 810
I Root For: UNCW
Location: Wilmington, NC
Post: #53
RE: Pac-12 commissioner to decide on expansion interests by end of week
(08-26-2021 12:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(08-26-2021 12:04 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(08-26-2021 11:56 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yes, thanks for posting that interview. The Pac-12 commissioner is actually pretty straight-forward in his answers compared to a lot of other college leaders, which is much appreciated. I hope that being around academia doesn't beat that out of him!

The North Star seems *really* tough if they're talking about 2 Alliance games per year. I think it will be hard enough to get everyone to have 1 Alliance game per year (especially when Notre Dame football games aren't considered to be Alliance games and the ACC isn't realistically giving up its SEC rivalries). Now, maybe this means virtually *all* cupcake games go away and schools are playing 11 or 12 P5 (P4?) games per year, which is fine with me in terms of being a fan and I'm sure the TV networks would love it. The answer to juicing TV revenue would definitely lean toward getting rid of those non-conference cupcakes (NOT reducing the conference schedule), although that likely means giving up a home game every year or 2 for the biggest schools (which is a big hurdle).

The cupcakes are going to have to go though I'm not sure how this scheduling mandate will be that different than current in actuality in terms of overall P5 games played by members in the PAC/B1G/ACC.

Its not like they are just adding 2 P5 games to the schedule. They are moving from 1.75 P5 games to a 2 or 2.25 P5 game average. At the expense of cupcakes of course.

Well, the last sentence is what I'm curious about if it's really at the expense of cupcakes or that means reducing the conference schedule (in the case of the Pac-12 and Big Ten) to 8 games. Note the SEC is almost certainly going up to 9 conference games and they've even considered 10.

The Pac-12 commissioner (with his candor) is pretty clearly stating that if the Alliance games are going to come online any time in the near future, the Pac-12 will need to go to an 8-game conference schedule. That certainly might be fine for the Pac-12 since that will juice their TV revenue, but the Big Ten is in a different position. The value of their own conference games is simply MUCH higher by comparison. The Big Ten has more depth in terms of marquee names (Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin and, at least historically if not currently, Nebraska), their "middle tier" brands would be upper tier brands in either the Pac-12 or ACC (e.g. Michigan State, Iowa), and even their least valuable football programs are generally huge market schools (e.g. Northwestern, Illinois, Rutgers, Maryland).

Obviously, the Michigan/Ohio State vs. USC/Clemson matchups all make sense to try to set up. What's different is once you get beyond that where the average value for each Big Ten conference game is so much higher than the Pac-12 or ACC, which means that trading one of those out for a non-conference game (and only get the TV rights to 50% of the time as opposed to 100% of the time, to boot) isn't a great financial trade-off to the Big Ten.

Now, maybe I'm being too pessimistic and the real trade-off here is that Alliance games are replacing early-season G5 and FCS payday matchups, in which case there's a ton of TV value for the Big Ten there (but once again, not great in terms of ticket revenue for the biggest schools if they have to give up home games).

Frank,

What you pointed out was something that I heard a lot about yesterday.

What exactly is the Big 10 getting out of this Alliance if its not a voting block?
08-26-2021 12:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #54
RE: Pac-12 commissioner to decide on expansion interests by end of week
(08-26-2021 11:56 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yes, thanks for posting that interview. The Pac-12 commissioner is actually pretty straight-forward in his answers compared to a lot of other college leaders, which is much appreciated. I hope that being around academia doesn't beat that out of him!

The North Star seems *really* tough if they're talking about 2 Alliance games per year. I think it will be hard enough to get everyone to have 1 Alliance game per year (especially when Notre Dame football games aren't considered to be Alliance games and the ACC isn't realistically giving up its SEC rivalries). Now, maybe this means virtually *all* cupcake games go away and schools are playing 11 or 12 P5 (P4?) games per year, which is fine with me in terms of being a fan and I'm sure the TV networks would love it. The answer to juicing TV revenue would definitely lean toward getting rid of those non-conference cupcakes (NOT reducing the conference schedule), although that likely means giving up a home game every year or 2 for the biggest schools (which is a big hurdle).

I don't see any way that benefits the Big 10. Cannot see them agreeing to it. But then Warren has proven he doesn't understand his members with his Covid cancellations.

One game I could see. Cannot see 2 a year.
08-26-2021 12:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Crayton Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,328
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation: 186
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #55
RE: Pac-12 commissioner to decide on expansion interests by end of week
(08-26-2021 12:04 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  I'll just throw this in - TCU is currently scheduled through 2033 with its OOC games. And that list includes Cal, Colorado, Stanford, Purdue, UNC and Duke. All Alliance members. My guess is that our games are going to end up counting towards their numbers. I don't expect cancellations and buy-outs from schools looking to enhance revenues.
Yes; I mentioned this in the other thread. Big 12, BYU, and select AAC teams allow the B1G and Pac-12 teams to all have an “alliance” game as early as 2023, IF Pac-12 drops to 8 games. Big 12 would have to add BYU and 1+ of those AAC teams to make the arrangement have as few parties as possible (4 conferences).

As far as balancing ACC, Pac-12, ND, etc games; just add the flexibility of additional cross-divisional games as “Alliance” games. If the B1G and ACC have too many games with one another that <12 can play a Pac-12 team... schedule another Pac North vs. South game.
08-26-2021 01:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #56
RE: Pac-12 commissioner to decide on expansion interests by end of week
(08-26-2021 12:17 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(08-26-2021 11:56 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(08-26-2021 11:10 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(08-26-2021 10:23 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  


Good interview. I highly recommend all expansionistas to listen in.

The most interesting comment is the "North Star" comment whereby the goal will be to have every PAC/B1G/ACC team to play 1H/1A in football against the PAC/B1G/ACC. Notre Dame's scheduling wouldn't be subject to the 1H/1A alliance provision.

The schedule model I believe will be 8 conference games and 2 alliance games for 10 games committed to in total.

ACC 14
B1G 14
PAC 12 (play ND x2)

ACC and B1G need 28 H/A games each and the PAC can only supply 22 when you factor in Stanford/USC playing in ND anyways.

If the PAC grows to 14 it can supply 26 games and if it grows to 16 it could then supply 30 games to the alliance. But what its showing is the amount the PAC can expand by is limited by what is practical for this alliance.

PAC is definitely not taking in the entire L8 at this point.

The Big Ten doesn't need 28 from each of the ACC and PAC12, it needs 28 from the ACC and PAC12 taken together. The pair have 40 to give.

Ditto the ACC needing 28 and their partners having 40 to give.

The PAC12 needs, on you calculus, 22 and their partners have 48 to give.

In other words ... the PAC12 can play 11 Big Ten games and 11 ACC. So the Big Ten needs 13 from the ACC and the ACC needs 13 from the Big Ten. No problem. No need to cut back conference distribution per school to add two schools just to make the numbers.

A two conference scheduling agreement need equal sized conferences. A three conference scheduling agreement doesn't.

B1G needs 28 (ACC/PAC have 52 to give 28+24)
AAC needs 28 (B1G/PAC have 52 to give)
PAC needs 24 (B1G/PAC have 56 to give)

If the B1G gets half each from the PAC and AAC that means only 26 of 28 are filled.

PAC could grab TCU/SMU to get the alliance into DFW. Small schools for Duke and Northwestern to play.

The math works. You just have more B$G/ACC games.
08-26-2021 01:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SouthEastAlaska Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,191
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 308
I Root For: UW
Location:
Post: #57
RE: Pac-12 commissioner to decide on expansion interests by end of week
(08-26-2021 12:04 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  
(08-25-2021 02:10 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  I would laugh if Kliavkoff got in front of the mic and said, " We are currently studying the idea of expansion candidates and we'll give offers to potential schools, if and when UT and OU leave to the SEC." and then walks out......

No idea who or how many schools, plus drop that tiny seed of doubt that UT and OU could back out of leaving the BigXII. This obviously would never happen but the comedic value of watching every contributor here and other sites as well as the national writers lose their minds would be most excellent.

We've extended an offer to OU, UT, LSU and Alabama

03-lmfao
08-26-2021 01:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,109
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 763
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #58
RE: Pac-12 commissioner to decide on expansion interests by end of week
(08-26-2021 11:56 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yes, thanks for posting that interview. The Pac-12 commissioner is actually pretty straight-forward in his answers compared to a lot of other college leaders, which is much appreciated. I hope that being around academia doesn't beat that out of him!

The North Star seems *really* tough if they're talking about 2 Alliance games per year. I think it will be hard enough to get everyone to have 1 Alliance game per year (especially when Notre Dame football games aren't considered to be Alliance games and the ACC isn't realistically giving up its SEC rivalries).

If the "North Star" is taken seriously, then this is a long term vision, not a medium term goal. This is presented alongside the fact that Football contracts are already scheduled into the 2030's.

So as a guiding vision, on the Alliance scheduling side, the medium term goal is to get to one, alternating home and away.

Between now and then, the Big Ten's next contract starts in mid-2023. If the Big Ten puts 11 P5{+} games, no FCS games on the table, that won't be for free. That increment would be the payment for the big stadium schools giving up the 7th home game in alternate years.

That also sets the standard for the PAC-12 to put 11 P5{+} games, no FCS games on the table for the contract that starts in mid-2024. Also by that time, a CFP12 contract may have a heads of agreement hammered out, which will broaden the incentive to keep up with the Big Ten as far as Strength of Schedule goes.

Now, the ACC is bringing schools into Alliance scheduling as they can, but are hampered by not having an 11 P5{+}, no FCS rule in place. "Oh, ESPN, look at the games you are missing out on. Do you really want Clemson at SC States or Jax State at FSU more than you want one of those two playing an Alliance school at home? Seriously, we would consider an 11 P5{+}, no FCS rule if you make it worth our while."

Quote: Now, maybe this means virtually *all* cupcake games go away and schools are playing 11 or 12 P5 (P4?) games per year, which is fine with me in terms of being a fan and I'm sure the TV networks would love it. The answer to juicing TV revenue would definitely lean toward getting rid of those non-conference cupcakes (NOT reducing the conference schedule), although that likely means giving up a home game every year or 2 for the biggest schools (which is a big hurdle).

In the end, they may just classify the rotating Notre Dame games in the ACC as Alliance games ... since they are games against "an Alliance member" that are not conference games ... even though they will not be set in a "competitiveness" scheduling system.

Unlike USC and Stanford, that will not mean giving up Clemson and FSU from the system every year. It will mean in the early years the Alliance scheduled games are more heavily dominated by the Big Ten and PAC12, but it's not as if those schools are reluctant to play each other. And as the conferences work toward being able to have 1H/1A per school, that impact would lesson.

Now, five is an odd number, so including the ND ACC games in the system requires one more be included to make the numbers come out even. Notre Dame already has one or two games against Big Ten schools for 2021-8, 2030/1, 2033/4, so one approach would be that if there is a Big Ten / Notre Dame game that rounds out its ACC schedule to 3H/3A, that Big Ten game is counted as an Alliance game, and if not, a PAC12 game which matches will do so. On the present cycle, that would be USC, (unless there are two PAC12 games that fit in a given year) but if that threatens to happen too many time, the PAC12 and Notre Dame could sort out a year of repeating the previous years Notre Dame H/A scheduling to place Stanford in the spot that rounds out the 3H/3A.

It's not like there is an existing Alliance system and "deeming" legacy Notre Dame relationships and contract obligations and individual contract negotiations to be "Alliance games" even though they are entirely independent of the Alliance scheduling system will violate any deep seated assumptions about "what an Alliance game is".

_____________________
{Note: P5
Yes, P5, not P4. This is basic Game Theory. If more "power" games are made available for the Alliance by imposing an increase in "power conference" games, looking ahead to the "North Star" of 2 Alliance H/A games per year ... that 11th game is still an important part of it, because it gives the system flexibility. It avoids crowding out Georgia Tech / GA, Louisiana / Kentucky, FSU / Florida, Clemson / SC. It allows flexibility in which Notre Dame games are counted as Alliance games, because some of their opponents can count it as their "11th" power conference game.

But at the same time, if the requirement becomes established, is a medium term tool for creating opportunities to bring schools into the Alliance system ... that requirement then creates a need for "Power Conference" games among all Alliance schools.

And after taking so many Alliance OOC out of the "open market", restricting the options to the limited number of spots the Alliance schools have left plus the SEC puts the SEC on the sellers side of a sellers market. Allowing the Big12 to be "deemed" a Power Conference "for purposes of filling the 11th P5 game" makes it much easier to fill in the 11th P5 game ... especially for the schools that tend to reside in the bottom half of the divisional ladders.

The flip side of that game is that the SEC will not impose a P4 requirement which puts the Alliance in the sellers side of a sellers market ... so they will impose a P5 rule in return.

And, conveniently, all of that game playing can be done without anybody having to go first, because everybody at present has P5 requirements ... so all the game needs is for everyone to keep them in place.
08-27-2021 12:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.