Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Not a big alliance fan
Author Message
Fighting Muskie Offline
Senior Chief Realignmentologist
*

Posts: 7,162
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Biden Cesspool
Post: #1
Not a big alliance fan
I have to say that I’m not a big fan of large, whole sale football scheduling agreements.

I’m all for setting requirements for how many P5 games a conference should be scheduling and FCS bans but a every member of league A plays a member of league B is tedious. This is bound to get in the way of local rivalries like Iowa St-Iowa and Utah-BYU that are for more intense and interesting than just pairing them with some generic school of similar standing from another league.

If you want to black ball a conference that’s fine. If you want to try and get some top notch Blue Blood vs Blue Blood games that’s cool too but don’t force us to watch Oregon St vs Boston College just because they both finished in 11th place.
09-12-2021 08:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


schmolik Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,229
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation: 175
I Root For: UIUC, PSU, Nova
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Post: #2
RE: Not a big alliance fan
The conference vs. conference matchups seem to work in basketball and might in other sports. The problem with football is there are just too few games a season. I would hate to sacrifice a conference game from the Big 10 schedule, especially if I'm Illinois and it's likely to be one fewer East Division game vs. Penn State, Ohio State, or Michigan. I have no problem working with the ACC and Pac 12 when it comes to non conference football games but I would still like the flexibility to play other conferences as well. And as Fighting Muskie say, Oregon at Ohio State yes, Oregon State vs. Boston College no thanks.
09-12-2021 08:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Scoochpooch1 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 737
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 39
I Root For: P4
Location:
Post: #3
RE: Not a big alliance fan
(09-12-2021 08:02 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I have to say that I’m not a big fan of large, whole sale football scheduling agreements.

I’m all for setting requirements for how many P5 games a conference should be scheduling and FCS bans but a every member of league A plays a member of league B is tedious. This is bound to get in the way of local rivalries like Iowa St-Iowa and Utah-BYU that are for more intense and interesting than just pairing them with some generic school of similar standing from another league.

If you want to black ball a conference that’s fine. If you want to try and get some top notch Blue Blood vs Blue Blood games that’s cool too but don’t force us to watch Oregon St vs Boston College just because they both finished in 11th place.

They need to try something..The SEC is head and shoulders above everyone again. Look how bad the Big Ten and Big 12 look already.
The most important pieces are rivalry and conference games. The rest should be filled out by the alliance with a complete FCS and G5 ban for P5 teams.
09-12-2021 08:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Troy_Fan_15 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,175
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation: 52
I Root For: Troy, SBC, G5
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Not a big alliance fan
My question is will that dilute the special nature of B1G vs PAC in the Rose Bowl having so many more games vs one another.
09-12-2021 08:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,455
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 313
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #5
RE: Not a big alliance fan
(09-12-2021 08:02 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I have to say that I’m not a big fan of large, whole sale football scheduling agreements.

I’m all for setting requirements for how many P5 games a conference should be scheduling and FCS bans but a every member of league A plays a member of league B is tedious. This is bound to get in the way of local rivalries like Iowa St-Iowa and Utah-BYU that are for more intense and interesting than just pairing them with some generic school of similar standing from another league.

If you want to black ball a conference that’s fine. If you want to try and get some top notch Blue Blood vs Blue Blood games that’s cool too but don’t force us to watch Oregon St vs Boston College just because they both finished in 11th place.

Why is that OK?
09-12-2021 08:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ChrisLords Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,907
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 169
I Root For: Virginia Tech
Location: Earth
Post: #6
RE: Not a big alliance fan
(09-12-2021 08:02 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I have to say that I’m not a big fan of large, whole sale football scheduling agreements.

I’m all for setting requirements for how many P5 games a conference should be scheduling and FCS bans but a every member of league A plays a member of league B is tedious. This is bound to get in the way of local rivalries like Iowa St-Iowa and Utah-BYU that are for more intense and interesting than just pairing them with some generic school of similar standing from another league.

If you want to black ball a conference that’s fine. If you want to try and get some top notch Blue Blood vs Blue Blood games that’s cool too but don’t force us to watch Oregon St vs Boston College just because they both finished in 11th place.

They won't do that, there's no value in it. They'll probably pair up the top 2 or 3 match ups and have the conference buy out those teams FCS or cheapest G5 match-up to pair up the best contenders with 1 years notice.

Indiana would not normally be a contender but being ranked in the top 15 after the year they had last year would have been a Marketable match-up vs. UNC or Miami or Clemson to start up the season. Of course they all had Marquee match-ups in week 1 anyway.
09-12-2021 09:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


msm96wolf Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,160
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 161
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #7
RE: Not a big alliance fan
It is not about scheduling, is a block of votes to stop the SEC. Will it work, without a written agreement, doubtful.
09-12-2021 09:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoBuckeyes1047 Online
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 121
Joined: Jan 2021
Reputation: 16
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #8
RE: Not a big alliance fan
(09-12-2021 08:20 PM)schmolik Wrote:  The conference vs. conference matchups seem to work in basketball and might in other sports. The problem with football is there are just too few games a season. I would hate to sacrifice a conference game from the Big 10 schedule, especially if I'm Illinois and it's likely to be one fewer East Division game vs. Penn State, Ohio State, or Michigan. I have no problem working with the ACC and Pac 12 when it comes to non conference football games but I would still like the flexibility to play other conferences as well. And as Fighting Muskie say, Oregon at Ohio State yes, Oregon State vs. Boston College no thanks.

Dropping divisions with 3 protected rivalries would help making sure everyone gets their big games and play everyone home & home each year in an 8 game conference schedule. Would also result in a more balanced schedule.

Using Illinois as an example, their schedule would like:
Northwestern
Ohio St.
Purdue
Penn State/Indiana
Michigan St./Michigan
Iowa/Nebraska
Minnesota/Wisconsin
Rutgers/Maryland

You could make a clause for teams who play annual rivalry games against P5 rivals (right now: Clemson, Florida St. Georgia Tech, Iowa, Louisville, USC, and Utah; maybe Illinois and Pittsburgh) only play 1 allance game if they wish. That way there's still 2 games they can schedule whoever they want and not be left with the possibility of only being able to schedule a cupcake game.
09-12-2021 10:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GreenFreakUAB Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,020
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 11
I Root For: UAB
Location: Pleasant Grove, AL.
Post: #9
RE: Not a big alliance fan
(09-12-2021 09:40 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  It is not about scheduling, is a block of votes to stop the SEC. Will it work, without a written agreement, doubtful.

...with that, I wonder if the SEC would form their own 'alliance' with the BIG XII (yeah, uber-awkward at this point, but $$$ has some powerful juju...) and perhaps a 'replenished' AAC - of course, the main goal (if it IS an issue) for the SEC would be to get as many 'votes' as the Big10/Pac12/ACC 'alliance' would have... I mean, BIG XII would match up vote-wise with the PAC, and the AAC could do a big-time backfill to match the # in the ACC... not COMPARING conferences, mind you, but just matching up the 'alliances' for votes of Division I-A (or FBS for you millennials out there 03-old ) ...and also the SEC would have some scheduling options, especially in basketball, as the BIG XII will be stout there, and hopefully the AAC as well, and some decent OOC opponents for the SEC (after the top 2-3 SEC teams, there would be some nice matchups between SEC-BIG XII, and heck, hopefully the AAC as well (e.g., ECU took USCa to the wire this week).

A somewhat weird deal, but not too far-fetched, if the 'endgame' is two Mega-Conferences... could be the first step, but of course all the TOP dawgs eventually will end up in one, with the 'next tier' just below... y'all figure out who goes where... 02-13-banana02-13-banana02-13-banana
09-12-2021 11:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SouthEastAlaska Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 602
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 24
I Root For: UW,PAC12
Location:
Post: #10
RE: Not a big alliance fan
The Alliance is not trying to black ball other conferences. They only want to work together as a balance to the obvious strength of the SEC.

IMO, the Alliance is 1st, 2nd, and 3rd about the playoff and getting it to the open market. Next, the NCAA constitution committee. Then lastly about possible OOC scheduling which we won't see any time soon as the majority of their members have full calendars over the next 4 or 5 years.
09-12-2021 11:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GreenFreakUAB Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,020
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 11
I Root For: UAB
Location: Pleasant Grove, AL.
Post: #11
RE: Not a big alliance fan
(09-12-2021 11:41 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  The Alliance is not trying to black ball other conferences. They only want to work together as a balance to the obvious strength of the SEC.

IMO, the Alliance is 1st, 2nd, and 3rd about the playoff and getting it to the open market. Next, the NCAA constitution committee. Then lastly about possible OOC scheduling which we won't see any time soon as the majority of their members have full calendars over the next 4 or 5 years.

...I agree, and the SEC may not have many 'P5' allies left if the Big XII is still ticked off at them (signs point to 'YES' )... ...but it would be asinine for, say, the upcoming Auburn-Penn State game to not be allowed in the future... WAY too much $$$ and interest involved. And how does affect bowls? Will there be some limits as to who plays who? I doubt it, as again, $$$ is the bottom line here. I DO think the Alliance is just another 'nail in the coffin' of the NCAA, tho, as I think they have discussed NIL stuff and perhaps other things which the NCAA has suppressed over the decades, but probably shouldn't have... again, most likely dealing with money...
09-13-2021 12:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,146
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 348
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #12
RE: Not a big alliance fan
(09-12-2021 10:03 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  You could make a clause for teams who play annual rivalry games against P5 rivals (right now: Clemson, Florida St. Georgia Tech, Iowa, Louisville, USC, and Utah; maybe Illinois and Pittsburgh) only play 1 allance game if they wish. That way there's still 2 games they can schedule whoever they want and not be left with the possibility of only being able to schedule a cupcake game.

If the PAC12 and BigTen go to 11 P5 games are part of their next TV contracts, they can get to one Alliance game more easily. That would mean big stadium schools down to 6 home games in alternate years, but the idea would be the top up for the increase in quality of the OOC inventory would pay enough for the big stadium schools to accept it.

There's no way they get to two Alliance games per season without dropping to eight conference games, which requires CCG deregulation that allows permanent rivals + rotate the rest scheduling.
(This post was last modified: 09-13-2021 12:32 AM by BruceMcF.)
09-13-2021 12:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,419
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 751
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #13
RE: Not a big alliance fan
(09-13-2021 12:30 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(09-12-2021 10:03 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  You could make a clause for teams who play annual rivalry games against P5 rivals (right now: Clemson, Florida St. Georgia Tech, Iowa, Louisville, USC, and Utah; maybe Illinois and Pittsburgh) only play 1 allance game if they wish. That way there's still 2 games they can schedule whoever they want and not be left with the possibility of only being able to schedule a cupcake game.

If the PAC12 and BigTen go to 11 P5 games are part of their next TV contracts, they can get to one Alliance game more easily. That would mean big stadium schools down to 6 home games in alternate years, but the idea would be the top up for the increase in quality of the OOC inventory would pay enough for the big stadium schools to accept it.

There’s no way they get to two Alliance games per season without dropping to eight conference games, which requires CCG deregulation that allows permanent rivals + rotate the rest scheduling.

Right - the big problem is that there effectively can’t be 11 P5 games in the Big Ten because virtually all of the schools (including lowly ones like my Illinois) consider 7 home games per year to be sacrosanct. The quotes from the Iowa AD made that crystal clear: whatever arrangement they have, they must have 7 home games per year.

Believe me - if an Alliance game was replacing an FCS or G5 guarantee home game, it would make for a lot more interesting schedule. However, that’s not what’s going to happen if it ever actually happens. The only way that it can be done for the Big Ten is to drop a conference game. That helps out the Pac-12 a lot because now they’d be getting regular games against the large Big Ten brands like Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Wisconsin, but it’s not an even trade-off.

As a reminder, the Big Ten still makes more TV money than the SEC: the most valuable games for the Big Ten are their actual conference games. Look at how much more interesting it is for the Big Ten having a large slate of conference games on opening weekend. That’s why I don’t want the Big Ten to rush into arrangements just for the sake of having a response to the SEC.
(This post was last modified: 09-13-2021 07:41 AM by Frank the Tank.)
09-13-2021 07:39 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,691
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 894
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Charlotte, NC
Post: #14
RE: Not a big alliance fan
The success or failure of the alliance will rest in large part on whether the Big Ten agrees to 2 P5 ooc games per year - one home, the other away. If they do, the ACC and Pac-12 will play along. If not, the whole thing is doomed.
09-13-2021 08:27 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,520
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 364
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #15
RE: Not a big alliance fan
(09-12-2021 08:02 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I have to say that I’m not a big fan of large, whole sale football scheduling agreements.

I’m all for setting requirements for how many P5 games a conference should be scheduling and FCS bans but a every member of league A plays a member of league B is tedious. This is bound to get in the way of local rivalries like Iowa St-Iowa and Utah-BYU that are for more intense and interesting than just pairing them with some generic school of similar standing from another league.

If you want to black ball a conference that’s fine. If you want to try and get some top notch Blue Blood vs Blue Blood games that’s cool too but don’t force us to watch Oregon St vs Boston College just because they both finished in 11th place.

In the long run, I doubt that the ACC schools will ever schedule very many games with PAC teams or even western division B1G teams.
Clemson will still play South Carolina, Georgia Tech will continue to play Georgia, it's doubtful that those teams ever schedule B1G teams OOC.
The "alliance" is a political move, pure and simple. The scheduling aspect was just a talking point to avoid talking about the true agenda.
09-13-2021 08:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 40,913
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1420
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #16
RE: Not a big alliance fan
(09-13-2021 08:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-12-2021 08:02 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I have to say that I’m not a big fan of large, whole sale football scheduling agreements.

I’m all for setting requirements for how many P5 games a conference should be scheduling and FCS bans but a every member of league A plays a member of league B is tedious. This is bound to get in the way of local rivalries like Iowa St-Iowa and Utah-BYU that are for more intense and interesting than just pairing them with some generic school of similar standing from another league.

If you want to black ball a conference that’s fine. If you want to try and get some top notch Blue Blood vs Blue Blood games that’s cool too but don’t force us to watch Oregon St vs Boston College just because they both finished in 11th place.

In the long run, I doubt that the ACC schools will ever schedule very many games with PAC teams or even western division B1G teams.
Clemson will still play South Carolina, Georgia Tech will continue to play Georgia, it's doubtful that those teams ever schedule B1G teams OOC.
The "alliance" is a political move, pure and simple. The scheduling aspect was just a talking point to avoid talking about the true agenda.

I agree with this. The scheduling arrangement is likely to be a lot of fizzle and very little beef. As you say, nobody is giving up rivalry games, and not just ACC/SEC games. Iowa isn't giving up Iowa State, USC and Stanford aren't dropping Notre Dame, etc. So there really isn't much wiggle-room to make big moves, and does anybody really want to see Clemson vs Minnesota anyway?

IMO, the Alliance was purely designed as a "show of strength" against a perceived ascendant SEC. It actually is a show of weakness, because numerically there was no need for a show of strength, as in the halls of power TX and OU add only two votes to the SEC, and heck the Big 12 and SEC tended to be like-minded about things anyway. It wasn't like TX and OU regularly sided with the B1G and PAC against the SEC on big issues, such that this is now a major swing in the power dynamic.

It was/is a fearful reaction on the part of Alliance conference admins, reflecting fear among their fan bases, and their desire that these conferences Do Something Dammit in the face of SEC "aggression".

But that's what it was intended to be.
(This post was last modified: 09-13-2021 08:53 AM by quo vadis.)
09-13-2021 08:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


SoCalBobcat78 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,511
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 124
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #17
RE: Not a big alliance fan
(09-13-2021 08:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I agree with this. The scheduling arrangement is likely to be a lot of fizzle and very little beef. As you say, nobody is giving up rivalry games, and not just ACC/SEC games. Iowa isn't giving up Iowa State, USC and Stanford aren't dropping Notre Dame, etc. So there really isn't much wiggle-room to make big moves, and does anybody really want to see Clemson vs Minnesota anyway?

IMO, the Alliance was purely designed as a "show of strength" against a perceived ascendant SEC. It actually is a show of weakness, because numerically there was no need for a show of strength, as in the halls of power TX and OU add only two votes to the SEC, and heck the Big 12 and SEC tended to be like-minded about things anyway. It wasn't like TX and OU regularly sided with the B1G and PAC against the SEC on big issues, such that this is now a major swing in the power dynamic.

It was/is a fearful reaction on the part of Alliance conference admins, reflecting fear among their fan bases, and their desire that these conferences Do Something Dammit in the face of SEC "aggression".

But that's what it was intended to be.

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 scheduling thing is going to be uneven in football, but it should work well for basketball and any other Olympic sports. The Pac-12 has 45 future regular season football games under contract with the SEC. They have 25 with the Big Ten and 6 with the ACC. They will still be playing SEC schools, but they certainly could add a lot of games with the Big Ten and ACC.

The question is, for an example, does Oregon State gain anything by dropping a conference game with Arizona State for a non-conference game with Virginia? Next season, Oregon State plays Boise State, Fresno State, and Montana State in non-conference play. They could drop Montana State for a Big Ten school, as an example. But if they drop to eight conference games and add Virginia for Arizona State, what did they gain? It is more difficult to schedule quality non-conference games for a school like Oregon State than it is for UCLA or USC. The scheduling alliance for football has some issues to resolve, but it should help.
09-13-2021 11:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 40,913
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1420
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #18
RE: Not a big alliance fan
(09-13-2021 11:18 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(09-13-2021 08:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I agree with this. The scheduling arrangement is likely to be a lot of fizzle and very little beef. As you say, nobody is giving up rivalry games, and not just ACC/SEC games. Iowa isn't giving up Iowa State, USC and Stanford aren't dropping Notre Dame, etc. So there really isn't much wiggle-room to make big moves, and does anybody really want to see Clemson vs Minnesota anyway?

IMO, the Alliance was purely designed as a "show of strength" against a perceived ascendant SEC. It actually is a show of weakness, because numerically there was no need for a show of strength, as in the halls of power TX and OU add only two votes to the SEC, and heck the Big 12 and SEC tended to be like-minded about things anyway. It wasn't like TX and OU regularly sided with the B1G and PAC against the SEC on big issues, such that this is now a major swing in the power dynamic.

It was/is a fearful reaction on the part of Alliance conference admins, reflecting fear among their fan bases, and their desire that these conferences Do Something Dammit in the face of SEC "aggression".

But that's what it was intended to be.

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 ...
(This post was last modified: 09-13-2021 12:25 PM by quo vadis.)
09-13-2021 11:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SouthEastAlaska Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 602
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 24
I Root For: UW,PAC12
Location:
Post: #19
RE: Not a big alliance fan
(09-13-2021 11:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(09-13-2021 11:18 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(09-13-2021 08:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I agree with this. The scheduling arrangement is likely to be a lot of fizzle and very little beef. As you say, nobody is giving up rivalry games, and not just ACC/SEC games. Iowa isn't giving up Iowa State, USC and Stanford aren't dropping Notre Dame, etc. So there really isn't much wiggle-room to make big moves, and does anybody really want to see Clemson vs Minnesota anyway?

IMO, the Alliance was purely designed as a "show of strength" against a perceived ascendant SEC. It actually is a show of weakness, because numerically there was no need for a show of strength, as in the halls of power TX and OU add only two votes to the SEC, and heck the Big 12 and SEC tended to be like-minded about things anyway. It wasn't like TX and OU regularly sided with the B1G and PAC against the SEC on big issues, such that this is now a major swing in the power dynamic.

It was/is a fearful reaction on the part of Alliance conference admins, reflecting fear among their fan bases, and their desire that these conferences Do Something Dammit in the face of SEC "aggression".

But that's what it was intended to be.

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 ...

It's only a show of weakness, meaningless, and chest-puffery if it's all just words and doesn't result in what they intend to do. As many have said, their intentions are to get he playoff to the open market where more than just ESPN has bidding rights.

We'll all find out together over the next few years if the alliance has..... the..... ummm... stones.... 03-lmfao to stand their ground and get this to the finish line. If they don't then you are correct in everything you have stated. 04-cheers
09-13-2021 03:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,511
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 124
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #20
RE: Not a big alliance fan
(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.
09-13-2021 03:44 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.