(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.