What do you guys think? The stated reason for excluding them was the instability of the conference. With today's additions it can be argued that they are stable going forward. Does it become 4 on 1 against the SEC?

Yes, with the B12 committing to having 12 or even 14 members after Texas and Oklahoma leave, I think they should be an alliance member and get an auto bid to the 8 or 12 team playoffs just like all the P5 should.

edit : Also, this should be in the College Sports and Conference Realignment forum.

(09-11-2021 03:41 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Yes, with the B12 committing to having 12 or even 14 members after Texas and Oklahoma leave, I think they should be an alliance member and get an auto bid to the 8 or 12 team playoffs just like all the P5 should.

edit : Also, this should be in the College Sports and Conference Realignment forum.

Yes, its a great subject for the realignment board as well as this board. But I would be interested in seeing the comments from members of other conferences.

Yes, at least unofficially

14 ACC schools attempting to schedule 26 B10/P12 schools twice a year is very complicated.

14 ACC schools attempting to schedule 40 B10/P12/B12 schools is easier.

The B12 offers four trips to Texas, one to Florida, one to Utah, and one to Ohio.

We already have games scheduled with Cincy, BYU, and Texas Tech.

While things my eventually evolve to just 32-36 schools playing at the top level, I think that might become boring. I find the NFL boring except when you get into December.

(09-11-2021 09:06 AM)Statefan Wrote:  While things my eventually evolve to just 32-36 schools playing at the top level, I think that might become boring. I find the NFL boring except when you get into December.

Yeah. That's the way I see it also. And I agree about the NFL.

No. Are there any members of the Big 12 in the AAU even with the new teams?

(09-11-2021 10:56 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  No. Are there any members of the Big 12 in the AAU even with the new teams?

Kansas and Iowa State

(09-11-2021 09:06 AM)Statefan Wrote:  Yes, at least unofficially

14 ACC schools attempting to schedule 26 B10/P12 schools twice a year is very complicated.

14 ACC schools attempting to schedule 40 B10/P12/B12 schools is easier.

The B12 offers four trips to Texas, one to Florida, one to Utah, and one to Ohio.

We already have games scheduled with Cincy, BYU, and Texas Tech.

While things my eventually evolve to just 32-36 schools playing at the top level, I think that might become boring. I find the NFL boring except when you get into December.

You could've left off "trips to... Utah"

(09-11-2021 06:55 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(09-11-2021 03:41 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Yes, with the B12 committing to having 12 or even 14 members after Texas and Oklahoma leave, I think they should be an alliance member and get an auto bid to the 8 or 12 team playoffs just like all the P5 should.

edit : Also, this should be in the College Sports and Conference Realignment forum.

Yes, its a great subject for the realignment board as well as this board. But I would be interested in seeing the comments from members of other conferences.

I wanted intelligent comments. Plus we are part of the Alliance.

In terms of scheduling OOC, the B12 will have the same dilemma as the ACC. The ACC has many historic rivalries against teams in the SEC East; and the B12 has similar compelling rivalries against the SEC West. It’s in the best interests of the ACC and B12 to keep leveraging those games to build media value and competitive strength. It would be foolish to not schedule rivalry games against the SEC.

That having been said, a stable and larger B12 wants to be in the Alliance. A revised CFP expansion proposal (8 teams with 6 conference champs) would be ideal for the B12. The B12 has diluted their internal conference payouts by growing, but desperately wants to keep some semblance of overall CFP distribution amongst the five power conferences. The ACC and PAC should support the B12’s inclusion in the Alliance…the B10, not so much.

It honestly doesn't make a difference to me either way. I honestly prefer partnering with the SEC and B12.

I doubt it.

The Big 12 is a damaged product. I don’t think the ACC, the BIG, and the Pac would be that inclusive. Also if the Big 12 joins the alliance, the optics would look bad: that is like the other P4 gang up against the SEC.

(09-10-2021 10:03 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  What do you guys think? The stated reason for excluding them was the instability of the conference. With today's additions it can be argued that they are stable going forward. Does it become 4 on 1 against the SEC?

Probably not.
The idea has been to reduce the number of "P" schools for years.
The Big 12 may be stable, but they are no longer a P conference.

(09-12-2021 11:54 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  It honestly doesn't make a difference to me either way. I honestly prefer partnering with the SEC and B12.

Coming from a Pittsburgh fan this hurts.

(09-12-2021 12:46 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(09-12-2021 11:54 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  It honestly doesn't make a difference to me either way. I honestly prefer partnering with the SEC and B12.

Coming from a Pittsburgh fan this hurts.

I am floored by the hypocrisy in all of this. The most liberal of Universities are the ones banning together to keep amateurism and to lobby against pay for play and are for limits on NIL. And this is clearly part of the alliances stance. They are only hiding behind the contrived objections to the CFP to suck up to the NCAA model in the guise of protecting college sports. Warren has even clarified his position on this matter stressing no pay for play. It is why the Alston attorney's have threatened a collusion suit against the alliance.

So anyone pushing this agenda is about continuing to use the bodies, and because of CTE's, the minds of these kids for their own institutions' profit at the expense of the athletes. And claiming they get an education and graduation rates when most will never hold a job outside of athletics is disingenuous.

For most of you here you don't support this position either but your SEC schadenfreude keeps you blinded to what UNC, UVa, and Duke are seeking to do with Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois, and Wisconsin, and Stanford and Cal. It is the height of hypocrisy for these schools to wrap themselves in "players rights" talk and take these actions. Shame, shame, shame!

(09-12-2021 01:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-12-2021 12:46 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(09-12-2021 11:54 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  It honestly doesn't make a difference to me either way. I honestly prefer partnering with the SEC and B12.

Coming from a Pittsburgh fan this hurts.

I am floored by the hypocrisy in all of this. The most liberal of Universities are the ones banning together to keep amateurism and to lobby against pay for play and are for limits on NIL. And this is clearly part of the alliances stance. They are only hiding behind the contrived objections to the CFP to suck up to the NCAA model in the guise of protecting college sports. Warren has even clarified his position on this matter stressing no pay for play. It is why the Alston attorney's have threatened a collusion suit against the alliance.

So anyone pushing this agenda is about continuing to use the bodies, and because of CTE's, the minds of these kids for their own institutions' profit at the expense of the athletes. And claiming they get an education and graduation rates when most will never hold a job outside of athletics is disingenuous.

For most of you here you don't support this position either but your SEC schadenfreude keeps you blinded to what UNC, UVa, and Duke are seeking to do with Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois, and Wisconsin, and Stanford and Cal. It is the height of hypocrisy for these schools to wrap themselves in "players rights" talk and take these actions. Shame, shame, shame!

Deploy careful aim over there in your glass house. Your corporate sugar daddy is cultural and political anathema to the literally the entire SEC footprint. The more TV money takes over the sport the dirtier everybody is going to get pursuing it.

I'd like to hope that someway, somehow, we get back to conferences drawn up primarily by geography, athletics peers, and academic peers instead of TV markets, time zones, and demographics. You can say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

(09-12-2021 12:46 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(09-12-2021 11:54 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  It honestly doesn't make a difference to me either way. I honestly prefer partnering with the SEC and B12.

Coming from a Pittsburgh fan this hurts.

It's nothing personal. PSU doesn't want anything to do with us and the B10 would never add Piitt. I just find potential games with Cincy, WVU and any SEC school more attractive for Pitt than games in the Midwest or Corvallis

Lord I hope not. I don’t want to see Cincinnati kick our asses. We’ve already got everyone in The ACC and Kentucky. We don’t need to go looking for another ass-whipping.

(09-12-2021 02:01 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-12-2021 01:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-12-2021 12:46 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(09-12-2021 11:54 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  It honestly doesn't make a difference to me either way. I honestly prefer partnering with the SEC and B12.

Coming from a Pittsburgh fan this hurts.

I am floored by the hypocrisy in all of this. The most liberal of Universities are the ones banning together to keep amateurism and to lobby against pay for play and are for limits on NIL. And this is clearly part of the alliances stance. They are only hiding behind the contrived objections to the CFP to suck up to the NCAA model in the guise of protecting college sports. Warren has even clarified his position on this matter stressing no pay for play. It is why the Alston attorney's have threatened a collusion suit against the alliance.

So anyone pushing this agenda is about continuing to use the bodies, and because of CTE's, the minds of these kids for their own institutions' profit at the expense of the athletes. And claiming they get an education and graduation rates when most will never hold a job outside of athletics is disingenuous.

For most of you here you don't support this position either but your SEC schadenfreude keeps you blinded to what UNC, UVa, and Duke are seeking to do with Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois, and Wisconsin, and Stanford and Cal. It is the height of hypocrisy for these schools to wrap themselves in "players rights" talk and take these actions. Shame, shame, shame!

Deploy careful aim over there in your glass house. Your corporate sugar daddy is cultural and political anathema to the literally the entire SEC footprint. The more TV money takes over the sport the dirtier everybody is going to get pursuing it.

I'd like to hope that someway, somehow, we get back to conferences drawn up primarily by geography, athletics peers, and academic peers instead of TV markets, time zones, and demographics. You can say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

Oh, I'm very aware. So tell me, where do you find a network out there which is fundamentally different? It sure isn't FOX, CBS, or NBC! So I find your point about the rights holder to be wholly moot! And the argument about the motives of the alliance to be unaddressed.

I had hoped that our conferences would sell their own product direct to the consumer via streaming if necessary since Disney made us standardize equipment for production and uplink. The reality is that University presidents have no appetite for thinking outside the box and prefer an easy corporate check. Thanks to Space X satellites are even more affordable and all of our idiots are leaving ~ 60% of total revenue on the table because we don't have the guts to make it happen. We certainly have trained enough engineers and broadcast majors to pull it off. We only lack the will.

(09-12-2021 02:17 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(09-12-2021 12:46 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(09-12-2021 11:54 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  It honestly doesn't make a difference to me either way. I honestly prefer partnering with the SEC and B12.

Coming from a Pittsburgh fan this hurts.

It's nothing personal. PSU doesn't want anything to do with us and the B10 would never add Piitt. I just find potential games with Cincy, WVU and any SEC school more attractive for Pitt than games in the Midwest or Corvallis

If I had my way, Pittsburgh would be in the Big Ten along with Penn State or if they can't be in the Big Ten to play PSU annually just like Florida/Florida State, Kentucky/Louisville, Iowa/Iowa State, etc. I have no control over the Penn State administration/athletic department.

Don't forget Ohio State is in the Big Ten as is Michigan. OSU is likely a loss but they'll fill up Pitt Stadium (hopefully enough Panther fans will buy tickets and not Buckeye fans). You wouldn't want to see UM come to Pittsburgh? I do agree with you about Corvallis. Don't forget the SEC and Big 12 have some middle of nowhere locations too, they're just not as far away. And yes the Pac 12 is far away but California and Los Angeles sounds like a fun destination to me. For me, Miami is too but they're in the ACC for Pittsburgh.