Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Not a big alliance fan
Author Message
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 41,021
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1431
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #21
RE: Not a big alliance fan
(09-13-2021 03:44 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(09-13-2021 11:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(09-13-2021 11:18 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  I think it is scheduling and looking out for your common interests. Let's face it, the SEC adding OU and UT was a brilliant move. The strongest football conference got a whole lot stronger. Plus, their commissioner was one of four involved in the future playoff expansion proposal. None of the Alliance commisioners were a part of the group. They also took out the Big 12 as a power conference. The PAC-12, ACC, and Big 12 cannot assume that the SEC and ESPN have their best interests at heart. The alliance will act as a check on the SEC and protect the interests of the Power 4 in the future.

The bolded part is an aspect that just doesn't resonate with me. Yes, Sankey was on the CFP committee and the Alliance commissioners were not - but they could have been, it's not like the SEC and B12 and Notre Dame somehow decided who was on the committee and who wasn't. The Alliance conferences all presumably supported the committee membership.

Plus, it's not clear how the proposed 12-team playoff works to the undue advantage of an expanded SEC anymore than it did to today's SEC. It really benefits everyone who doesn't like seeing only Clemson, Alabama, Ohio State and Oklahoma in every year, and it especially seems to benefit the PAC.

And again, I don't see how the SEC needs to be 'checked'. OU and TX are mighty from a brand perspective, but in voting councils they count as one vote. The SEC can't out-vote anyone with 16 votes, and heck, if anything, it has made a likely enemy out of the Big 12.

So the whole Alliance thing seems to me like meaninglessly chest-puffery from conferences that are mad that Texas and OU didn't apply to join their leagues.

Just MO ...

I thought this article was a good summary of concerns:
https://theathletic.com/2737943/2021/07/...er-league/

"But two things are certain: By working behind the scenes to add two of the strongest brands in college sports while simultaneously working to remake the ultra-lucrative postseason format in a way that benefits his league tremendously, Sankey made the SEC the most powerful league in college sports, and he created a current of fear and mistrust within the other leagues as everyone else tries to discern the SEC’s endgame. Does it simply want the most money, power and influence in the still-fractured world of college sports? Is it preparing for a world where the conferences — rather than the NCAA — set their own rules to avoid running afoul of the federal court system? Or is the SEC laying the groundwork years ahead of time for a top-division national college football Super League that lives under the SEC banner?"

It is that fear of the unknown. What is the endgame for the SEC? Look, I fully support what the SEC did and thought it was brilliant. The Big Ten, ACC, and Pac-12 had no expansion plan that could come close to the SEC Mic drop move. The Alliance is an effort to protect the interests of the other three power conferences. They may only have 16 votes, but those are 16 powerful and influential votes. Then there is ESPN's power and influence. No one knows where this is going, but you have to understand and see that there are going to be some trust issues with the SEC after the move to add OU and UT.

I've read all these accounts. What I don't get is - IMO the expanded 12 team playoff benefits every conference tremendously. It benefits the PAC tremendously, the B1G tremendously, everyone I can think of.

Now personally, I don't like it. I like the current 4-team model and wish we would just stick with it. But in terms of money and access, all the conferences are big tremendous winners, IMO.

It sounds like some other conferences think maybe Sankey should have recused himself from the playoff committee? But why? And if he did, who thinks the playoff proposal would look any different if the B1G commissioner had been on it instead?

That's what I don't get about the Big Signing TX and OU While Working On The Playoff Committee Conspiracy in the media. I just do not see a conflict of interest in Sankey's involvement on the expansion playoff committee and negotiating with TX and OU behind the scenes.

I mean, imagine if TX and OU never were interested in joining the SEC. What proposal would Sankey likely have wanted? IMO the exact same 12-team playoff. It was never any secret that the SEC would want lots of at-large teams, because it tends to have a lot of high-ranked teams. The B1G as well. So if that was a concern, Sankey never should have been appointed to begin with.

So when an alleged conflict of interest produces the exact same result as we would expect absent that alleged conflict of interest, that leads me to believe that ... there was no conflict of interest.

What's to distrust? Call me dumb, but I just don't know.
(This post was last modified: 09-13-2021 05:20 PM by quo vadis.)
09-13-2021 05:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
Senior Chief Realignmentologist
*

Posts: 7,205
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Biden Cesspool
Post: #22
RE: Not a big alliance fan
I guess I should clarify regarding my OP—I’m not in favor of broad football scheduling alliances. If the Big 10, PAC 12, and ACC want to work together to shape NCAA legislation and the post season, I’m perfectly okay with that. I’m just not a fan of restricting who schools can schedule OOC.
09-13-2021 07:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 463
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 59
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #23
RE: Not a big alliance fan
(09-13-2021 07:29 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I guess I should clarify regarding my OP—I’m not in favor of broad football scheduling alliances. If the Big 10, PAC 12, and ACC want to work together to shape NCAA legislation and the post season, I’m perfectly okay with that. I’m just not a fan of restricting who schools can schedule OOC.

But will they restrict OOC schedules? I doubt they'll ever do anything other than match up their top brands a little more often.
09-13-2021 10:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 463
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 59
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #24
RE: Not a big alliance fan
(09-13-2021 05:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I've read all these accounts. What I don't get is - IMO the expanded 12 team playoff benefits every conference tremendously. It benefits the PAC tremendously, the B1G tremendously, everyone I can think of.

Now personally, I don't like it. I like the current 4-team model and wish we would just stick with it. But in terms of money and access, all the conferences are big tremendous winners, IMO.

It sounds like some other conferences think maybe Sankey should have recused himself from the playoff committee? But why? And if he did, who thinks the playoff proposal would look any different if the B1G commissioner had been on it instead?

That's what I don't get about the Big Signing TX and OU While Working On The Playoff Committee Conspiracy in the media. I just do not see a conflict of interest in Sankey's involvement on the expansion playoff committee and negotiating with TX and OU behind the scenes.

I mean, imagine if TX and OU never were interested in joining the SEC. What proposal would Sankey likely have wanted? IMO the exact same 12-team playoff. It was never any secret that the SEC would want lots of at-large teams, because it tends to have a lot of high-ranked teams. The B1G as well. So if that was a concern, Sankey never should have been appointed to begin with.

So when an alleged conflict of interest produces the exact same result as we would expect absent that alleged conflict of interest, that leads me to believe that ... there was no conflict of interest.

What's to distrust? Call me dumb, but I just don't know.

Expanding the CFP would further undermine the Alliance's argument that players should not be paid. From a CBS Sports article:

Realignment among the three conferences has not been part of their discussions and will not be an issue addressed with the alliance, sources told Dodd. However, a significant portion of alliance conversations have been based on ensuring that athletes' academic success remains integral to the college sports experience.

"Some of things we've been doing to ourselves, that just needs to stop," said one high-profile official from a school within the would-be alliance. "Some of this ****, we're talking about expanding to 12 [teams]. For two teams that [go all the way], that's 17 games. We're going to talk about 'these kids aren't professionals' and we don't pay them? I firmly believe in the academic value of what we're doing, but at a certain point, it looks like professionals. … I firmly believe in the academic piece that we're providing."


IMO the Alliance does not want to fuel that fire while players have momentum -- NIL, Alston, NCAA setbacks in the House and Johnson lawsuits...
09-13-2021 10:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,187
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 350
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #25
RE: Not a big alliance fan
(09-13-2021 10:03 PM)chester Wrote:  
(09-13-2021 07:29 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I guess I should clarify regarding my OP—I’m not in favor of broad football scheduling alliances. If the Big 10, PAC 12, and ACC want to work together to shape NCAA legislation and the post season, I’m perfectly okay with that. I’m just not a fan of restricting who schools can schedule OOC.

But will they restrict OOC schedules? I doubt they'll ever do anything other than match up their top brands a little more often.

If they are dining at moving the needle on OOC inventory television value, it will be more than just nudging their top brands to match up a little more often.
09-14-2021 04:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JHS55 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,821
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 140
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #26
RE: Not a big alliance fan
16 team playoff and no committee and college football will flourish like never before...
09-14-2021 08:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Online
All American
*

Posts: 2,516
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 124
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #27
RE: Not a big alliance fan
(09-13-2021 10:28 PM)chester Wrote:  
(09-13-2021 05:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I've read all these accounts. What I don't get is - IMO the expanded 12 team playoff benefits every conference tremendously. It benefits the PAC tremendously, the B1G tremendously, everyone I can think of.

Now personally, I don't like it. I like the current 4-team model and wish we would just stick with it. But in terms of money and access, all the conferences are big tremendous winners, IMO.

It sounds like some other conferences think maybe Sankey should have recused himself from the playoff committee? But why? And if he did, who thinks the playoff proposal would look any different if the B1G commissioner had been on it instead?

That's what I don't get about the Big Signing TX and OU While Working On The Playoff Committee Conspiracy in the media. I just do not see a conflict of interest in Sankey's involvement on the expansion playoff committee and negotiating with TX and OU behind the scenes.

I mean, imagine if TX and OU never were interested in joining the SEC. What proposal would Sankey likely have wanted? IMO the exact same 12-team playoff. It was never any secret that the SEC would want lots of at-large teams, because it tends to have a lot of high-ranked teams. The B1G as well. So if that was a concern, Sankey never should have been appointed to begin with.

So when an alleged conflict of interest produces the exact same result as we would expect absent that alleged conflict of interest, that leads me to believe that ... there was no conflict of interest.

What's to distrust? Call me dumb, but I just don't know.

Expanding the CFP would further undermine the Alliance's argument that players should not be paid. From a CBS Sports article:

Realignment among the three conferences has not been part of their discussions and will not be an issue addressed with the alliance, sources told Dodd. However, a significant portion of alliance conversations have been based on ensuring that athletes' academic success remains integral to the college sports experience.

"Some of things we've been doing to ourselves, that just needs to stop," said one high-profile official from a school within the would-be alliance. "Some of this ****, we're talking about expanding to 12 [teams]. For two teams that [go all the way], that's 17 games. We're going to talk about 'these kids aren't professionals' and we don't pay them? I firmly believe in the academic value of what we're doing, but at a certain point, it looks like professionals. … I firmly believe in the academic piece that we're providing."


IMO the Alliance does not want to fuel that fire while players have momentum -- NIL, Alston, NCAA setbacks in the House and Johnson lawsuits...

The Alliance is not concerned about NIL. They fully support it. They have a concern about the academic side with the expansion of the playoffs. These are student-athletes after all.
09-14-2021 12:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2021 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, © 2002-2021 MyBB Group.